PA 

355 

F5 

1894 

MAIN 


^^^^KfUHmim  /;v« 


UC-NRLF 


B    M    D33    SEE 


I 


THE   DIFFERENCE 


BETWEEN 


THE  GENITIVE  AND  DATIVE 


USED    WITH    enc    TO 


DENOTE   SUPERPOSITION 


LEWIS  LEAMING  FORMAN,  A.  M. 


A  DISSERTATION  ACCEPTED  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR 

OF    PHILOSOPHY    IN    THE   JOHNS    HOPKINS 

UNIVERSITY,  FEBRUARY,    1 894 


BALTIMORE 
1894 


PRESS  OF 

THE  FBIEDENWALD  COMPANT 

BALTIMORE 


a 


^s 


p 


r 


(6^54 


"  Vix  quidquam  tam  lubricum  est  in  syntaxi  linguarum,  quani 
hi  loci,  qui  sunt  de  praepositionibus  et  de  coniunctionibus." 
These  words  of  G.  Hermann/  though  written  many  years  ago 
(1831),  must  be  recognized,  however  regretfully,  as  still  true  by 
any  one  who  has  attempted  to  answer  even  some  less  important 
question  in  prepositional  usage.  Classification  he  finds  difficult, 
at  times  impossible,  and  the  opinions  of  authorities  widely  diver- 
gent. 

On  the  general  theory  of  prepositions,  it  is  true,  Delbriick 
announced  in  1879  the  following  consensus  of  judgment :  "  Ueber 
die  urspriingliche  Anwendung  dieser  Prapositionen  (dvd,  eW,  napd, 
nepl,  irpos,  npo,  eV,  e'*c,  ^vv)  ist  man  jetzt  zu  einer  iibereinstimmenden 
Meinung  gelangt.  Man  nimmt  allgemein  an,  dass  die  Praposi- 
tionen ursprijnglich  wie  alle  Worter  Freiworier  (sog.  Adverbia) 
waren,  und  dann  Begleiiworter  wurden,  und  zwar  von  Anfang  an 
in  grosster  Ausdehnung  verbale  Begleitworter,  dagegen  Anfangs 
seltener  und  erst  im  Laufe  der  Zeit  haufiger  werdend  nominale 
Begleitworter.  In  der  altesten  Zeit  war  es  die  wesentliche  Auf- 
gabe  der  Prapositionen,  die  Richtung  der  im  Verbum  ausge- 
driickten  Handlung  naher  zu  bestimmen,  die  Beziehung  der 
Handlung  aber  auf  einen  Gegenstand  driickte  der  Casus  allein 
aus,  ohne  Beihiilfe  der  Prapositionen."-  So  essentially  say 
Kiihner,''  Curtius,*  Whitney^  and  others  before  this  date,  and  so 
Paul,**  Brugmann,'  Vogrinz**  and  others  since.  But  it  is  only  upon 
this  general  theory  that  a  consensus  can  be  obtained — so  general 
indeed  ihat  it  must  ignore  the  question  of  the  ultimate  origin  of 

'  Opuscula,  vol.  V,  p.  50,  quoted  by  Sobolewski,  De  Praepositionum  Usu 
Aristophaneo. 

'  Syntaktiscke  Forschungen,  IV  126. 

^  Grammatik  der  griech.  Sprache  (1870),  11,  ^428,  3  and  4. 

*  Erlauterungen  (1875),  P-  i?^- 

^Language  and  the  Study  0/ Lang.  (,1877),  p.  276. 

^  Principien  der  Sprachgeschichte  (18S6),  p.  316. 

'  Griechische  Gramviatik  (Miiller's  Handbuch,  II,  i8go),  §195. 

**  Gravimatik  des  komerischeu  J)iaUktes  (1889),  p.  206. 


IGr,19B 


prepositions,'  ;.  c.  whether  or  not  they  contain  the  dtems  of 
B e griff sworter :  whereas,  if  one  enters  into  particulars  even  so 
slightly  as  to  ask  for  a  definition  of  the  difference  between  the 
true  and  the  "improper"  preps.,  or  what  preps.,  if  any,  go  with 
the  true  gen.  case,  he  will  obtain  a  great  diversity  of  answers. 
Curtius,  for  instance,  finds  that  the  gen.  depends  upon  di/W,  t^poy 
dia,  vntp  "und  vielen  andern — gerade  in  der  Weise  wie  von  unserm 
Angesichts,  laut,  kraft."''  Delbriick  takes  issue  with  him,  though 
admitting  the  Curtius-construction  as  a  probability  for  dprl  and  a  pos- 
sibility for  Sid,  because  they  may  belong  to  the  class  of  "  unechten, 
d.  h.  aus  Nominalstammen  gebildeten  Prapositionen."''  Vogrinz, 
Gram,  des  homerischen  Dialekies,  takes  the  gen.  to  be  adnominal 
with  drri  (p.  21 1),  5id  (p.  214),  /card  Sometimes  (p.  215),  vrrip  (p.  216), 
■napd  "schwer  zu  entscheiden "  (p.  222),  Trpdy  "  allem  Anschein 
nach  "  (p.  223).     Delbriick  now  says:  "  Der  echte  Genitiv  findet 

sich  bei  dm,  vntp,  fitd,  fTTi,  TTOTi,  avd,  dfitpi,  nept,  pfrd,      Bci  dvTi,  xnrep  Und 

Sid  diirfte  es  der  alte  adnominale  Genitiv  sein,  welcher  uns  bei  den 
unechten  Prap.  begegnet."*  It  will  be  observed  that  as  these 
lists  are  not  co-extensive,  the  slipperiness  of  which  Hermann 
complains  is  still  present. 

For  the  purposes  of  the  present  essay,  however,  these  larger 
questions  need  not  be  taken  up  and  the  general  theory  as  above 
presented  may  be  subscribed  to.  We  proceed  therefore  to  the 
proper  subject  of  the  essay — the  difference  between  the  gen.  and 
dat.  used  with  tnl  to  express  superposition,  or,  to  take  a  concrete 
case, 

What  is  the  Attic  Greek  prose  for  '  with  his  hat  on  his  head '  ? 
Is  it  fV(  T^y  K€cj)a\rjs,  OT  eVt  ttj  K((})aXrj  ?  Or  if  either,  is  there  any 
shade  of  difference  in  the  meaning? 

For  the  translation  of  so  simple  a  phrase,  one  might  expect 

'See  Grassmann,  Ursp7ung  der  Prdpositiotten,  Kuhn's  Zeitschrift,  XXIII 
(1877),  p.  559.  He  maintains  (p.  563)  :  "  Keine  achte  Praposition  ist  aus 
einem  Begriffswort  entsprungen,"  as  also  :  "  Keine  achte  Prap.  ist  als  Casus 
zu  fassen."  See  on  the  contrary  for  Trapd,  Osthoff,  Morph.  [Inters.  IV  283, 
Anm.,  ♦'  der  alte  Instrumental,"  and  for  irepi  and  ivi,  Brugmann,  Gr.  Grafn., 
§194  (locat.).  So  too  (5m  ((^tni),  npo,  and  others  have  been  reckoned  among 
the  preps.  "  in  quibus  terminatio  alicuius  nominis  latet,  ex  quo  genetivus 
pendeat,"  J.  A.  Heilmann,  De  Genetivi  Graeci  maxima  Homerici  usu  (1873), 
p.  25,  note  2s 

^  Erlduterungett,  Y>.  177. 

^  Synt.  Forsch.  IV  134. 

*  Vergleichende  Syntax  der  indogermanischen  Sprachen  (1893),  p.  762. 


5 

clear  rules  and  distinctions  laid  down  even  in  the  elementary 
books.  The  question  is  not  one  of  origins.  No  matter  what  its 
derivation,  affinities  or  ultimate  meaning,  fVi  is  certainly  the 
proper  preposition,  while  the  case  of  the  substantive  should  be 
settled  by  an  examination  of  the  remains  of  Greek  literature  ;  and, 
if  both  cases  prove  to  be  allowed,  the  difference  between  them,  if 
worth  anything,  should  appear  at  the  same  time.  Only  in  this  last 
matter  need  one  feel  drawn  beyond  the  Greek  in  search  of  the 
Indo-Germanic  basis  of  distinction. 

Yet  simple  as  the  question  seems,  scholars  are  much  at  vari- 
ance about  it.     Stated  in  general  terms  the  question  is: 

i)  Does  Attic  Greek  prose  employ  «Vi  with  both  genitive 
and  dative  to  express  concrete  superposition  of  one  body  upon 
another? 

2)  If  so,  what  is  the  difference,  if  any,  between  the  two  forms 
of  expression  ? 

The  answers  of  the  following  authorities  I  quote  at  some  length, 
that  their  text  may  be  at  hand  for  reference. 

i)  Kiihner,  Granimaiik  der  griech.  Sprache  (1870),  II,  §438: 
"  eVt  mit  dem  Dativ,  i)  raumlich  zur  Angabe  des  Verweilens 
nicht  nur,  wie  beim  Gen.,  auf,  sondern,  und  zwar  haufiger,  in 
erweiterter  Bedeutung  an  od.  bei  einem  Orte  od.  Gegenstande." 
He  then  quotes  among  other  instances  of  auf  "Ken.  An.  VII  4,  4 

0(  QfjqKes  ras  aXtuTre/c/Saf  ('ni  rais   K€(f)a\ais   (f)opov<Ti   kui  tois  qxti  Koi  feipar 

(Oberkleider)  /n/;^pt  toiv  nohav  ejvl  twv  ittttwi'  e)(ovaii',  remarkmg  "  eni 
c.  dat.  rein  raumlich,  aber  fVt  Ta>v  lirnatv,  insofern  die  Pferde  als 
thatig  gedacht  werden ;  so  Plat.  Conv.  2i2<?  eVi  ttj  k^^oK^  exwi*  ras 

Tnivias,  aber  kurz  VOrher  raivlas  fx<^f  fVl  ttjs  Kec^aX^r." 

2)  Kriiger,  Griechische  Grammatik  (1875),  §68,  41,  i  :  "  Bei 
fVi  mit  dem  Gen.  wird  eine  mehr  zufallige,  freiere  Verbindung 
gedacht ;  bei  eVi  mit  dem  Dat.  schwebt  mehr  der  Begriff  der 
Zugehorigkeit  vor." 

3)  Rutherford,  Babrms  (1883),  p.  7  :  "  The  correct  Attic  usage 
is  very  simple,  the  best  writers  of  prose  and  comedy  limiting  eTri 
c.  gen.  to  position  or  motion  upon  an  object  or  surface,  and  Itil  c. 
dat.  to  position  or  motion  at  or  near.  Thus  a  floating  body  is 
(■n\  TTOTofiov,  a  city  eVt  norayLco.  A  wounded  man  may  be  carried 
home  fVt  dvpSiv,  a  beggar  sits  in\  dupais.  In  tragedy  this  distinc- 
tion is  not  observed,  and  eVt  c.  dat.  is  also  used  to  convey  the 
sense  which  prose  writers  confine  to  the  genitive.  In  Thucydides 
the  prose  usage  has  not  yet  become  absolute,  and  although  several 


deviations  from  the  rule,  such  as  dKiinov  fVi  u/iu^.v  KaraKOfiiCetv  (4,  67), 
admit  of  easy  correction,  yet  the  undoubted  dat.  in  2,  80  tovs 

onXiras   (tti    vavcrl   ntfJiiTovai,    4i    lO   *"■'   Toii    vav(T\  paaroi    elaiv   afiv^fadaif 

proves  that  such  emendation  is  as  uncalled  for  in  the  immature 
Attic  of  Thucydides  as  it  would  be  in  Herod,  or  Xen.  The  Ionic 
and  poetic  laxity  also  crops  up  in  the  Symposium,  where  Plato 
allows  himself  a  poet's  license,  and  in  the  same  paragraph  (21 2f) 
are  found  the  poetical  fVl  t^  KfcfyaXj}  exw  ■»"«?  raivias,  and  the  prosaic 
raivias  exovra  (it\  t^?  Kf(f)aX^s.  In  no  writer,  however,  is  the  genuine 
prose  signification  of  eVi  c.  dat.  ever  accredited  to  enl  c.  gen.,' 
although  the  meaning  '  in  the  direction  of  sometimes  brings  fVi 
close  to  that  of'  near.'" 

4)  Sobolewski,  De  Praeposiiionuvi  Usu  Aristophatieo  (Mos- 
cow, 1890),  p.  161:  "  Sed  omnino  genetivum  multo  usitatiorem 
dativo  in  quotidiano  Atticorum  sermone  fuisse  vel  inde  clarissime 
apparet,  quod  Aristoph.  hoc  usu  fVt  iungit  dativo  in  senariis  i  i-ies, 
in  alio  genere  versuum  13-ies  (quo  annumeravi  etiam  Vesp.  1293, 
ubi  Aristoph.  tragicos  imitatur),  genetivo  autem  in  senariis  48-ies, 
in  aliis  numeris  14-ies."  In  a  footnote  he  adds:  "  Errat  igitur 
Rutherfordius,  qui  hunc  dativi  usum  a  comicis  omnino  abiudicat 
(Babrius,  p.  7)."  On  the  difference  between  gen.  and  dat,,  p. 
160;  "  Quaerenti  mihi,  quid  inter  utramque  constructionem  inter- 
esset,  sensus  quidem  discrimen  esse  nullum  visum  est,"  citing  Eq. 
783  by  the  side  of  754,  and  Vesp.  1040  as  compared  with  Lys. 
575>  732,  Eccl.  909. 

5).  Gildersleeve,  America7i  Journal  of  Philology,  XI,  p.  372, 
reviewing  Sobolewski's  book:  "Under  fVi  c.  gen.  Sobolewski 
rejects  Kriiger's  distinction  between  fVi  c.  gen.  and  i-ni  c.  dat.  in 
a  local  sense,  a  distinction  which,  it  is  true,  might  well  be  reversed 
theoretically  as  well  as  practically,  for  we  should  expect  the 
natural  position  to  be  expressed  by  eVi  c.  gen.,  the  unnatural  by 
the  dat.  Fixity  of  position  is  in  fact  often  denoted  by  eVi  c.  gen. 
(see  my  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  I  26,  15),  and  it  is  not  impossible 
that  there  may  be  some  such  feeling  as  we  have  in  regard  to  vit6 
c.  gen.  and  vn-o  c.  dat.  In  refutation  of  Kriiger,  Sobolewski  points 
triumphantly  to  Eq.  783  compared  with  754,  but  he  might  have 
claimed  here,  not  mere  indifference,  but,  if  one  must  refine, 
reversal.     It  would  be  easy  to  make  Demos  wriggle  in  the  one 

'  See,  however,  to  take  the  word  Mr.  Rutherford  himself  has  chosen, 
Lycurg.  Kara  AeuKpaTovg  §40  opdv  6'  rjv  inl  fiev  ruv  Ovpuv  yvvalnaq  eAevdepag 
irepi<l>6pov(:  kta. 


passage  and  sit  quiet  in  his  '  fixed  normal  position  '  in  the  other. 
At  any  rate,  the  gen.  is  much  more  common  in  Attic  daily  speech 
than  the  dat.,  as  Sobolewski  shows,  though,  as  he  also  notes, 
Rutherford  is  wrong  in  denying  fVt  c.  dat.  in  this  sense  to  Attic 
(Babrius,  p.  7)." 

6).  Transferring  the  question  to  Homeric  Greek  (Monro,  Ho- 
meric Gram.,  §200)  :  "  The  gen.  with  tni  is  used  in  nearly  the  same 
sense  as  the  dat.,  but  usually  with  less  definitely  local  force;  in 
particular — i)  with  words  expressing  the  great  divisions  of  space, 
espec.  when  a  contrast  is  involved  (land  and  sea,  etc.);  as  int 

Xepaov,  (IT    rjneipov,  eV    aypov  ',    Od.   12,    2y    r)    6X69   17    «7ri   yfj?  aXyijo-ere — 

2)  where  the  local  relation  is  a  familiar  one ;  as  (tt\  vtjos,  «V'  dnrjprjs, 

e(f)     nrnwi',    enl    dpovov,    eV     ovboii,    e'nl    Trvpyov,    err     ayKcopos,    tni    p.eXir]S 

{(peiaOds).  Thus  inl  vrjva-i  means  OH  or  beside  ships,  eVt  vr\biv  on 
board  ships."  (But  for  the  Greeks  before  Troy  was  eVt  vr\u>v  a 
more  familiar  location  than  eVl  vr]vai  ?) 

Further  quotation  is  needless  to  prove  variety  of  opinion.'  Mr. 
Rutherford  is  perhaps  alone  in  denying  to  Attic  Greek  prose  the 
use  of  the  dat.  in  the  sense  of  superposition.  This  point  is  natu- 
rally the  first  to  be  taken  up,  and  could  perhaps  be  determined  by 
an  appeal  simply  to  Att.  Greek  prose.  But  it  will  be  better  to 
present  at  the  same  time  and  in  historic  order  the  whole  material 
of  the  question. 

The  following  lists 

i)  include  only  concrete  substantial  things,  admitting  abstrac- 
tions, metaphors  or  other  unrealities  only  when  they  vividly  sug- 
gest their  originals,  e.  g.  Soph.  Ant.    189-90  (speaking  of  the 

TToXif^  ravTrjs  em  -irXeopTes  ',  Ar.  Av.  39^4^  °*  H-^"  "Y^P  ovu  reTTiyes  .  .  ■  . 
('.  Toiv   KpaSwu   adova  ,    Adrjvaioi    S'    del    e.    rcov  diKuv  abovai  ;    Xen.  An.   II 

5,  23  of  the  wearing  of  the  tiara  i.  ttj  Kf^akrj  and  also  i.  rrj  KapBiq. 

2)  exclude  on  the  contrary  concrete  objects  where  evidently 
the  meaning  is  not  purely  local,  e.  g.  z  423-24  navTas  yap  Kare- 
TTfcfivf  ....  0ov(t\  €tt'   u\nr68f(Tui  (cf.  vv.  209,  22i)  ;   Xen.  Cyr.  V 

'I  may,  however,  quote  Kuemmell,  De  Praepositionis  iiri  Usit  Thucydideo 
(1875),  P-  30=  "  Structuris  Genetivi  et  Dativi  collatis  demonstrabo  saepe 
fere  nihil  interesse  Genetivus  an  Dativus  sit  usurpatus."  He  then  com- 
pares I  13,  5  with  I  56,  2,  £.  Tov  ladfiov  and  k.  tu  laOfxu  ;  II  93,  4  with  VIII 
106,  4  CLKpuTTipiov  and  -u  ;  IV  118,  4  with  105,  2  c.  rfjq  avruv  fjiveiv  and 
f.  roZf  iavTov  .  .  .  fziveiv ;  IV  100,  4  with  VIII  69  i,  fTr'  avToii  (sc.  tsixov^) 
and  e.  r£t>a  ;  III  102,  4  (and  IV  loi,  3)  with  II  80,  2  (and  IV  10,  3)  vewj' 
and  vavci. 


8 

3j  34  *'.  Toii  vTTo^vyioii  (cat  6}(T)fiaat  KaTaXint'ip  riva  ]    IsOC.  IJ,  42  (oXitdoa) 

*'(/>'  .V  TToXXa  xPVMa'-'  ^v  tyw  5eSa)/c(Ly,  of  a  loan,  not  literally  as  Baiter 
translates  it  "  naveni  onerariam,  cui  ego  multas  merces  imposu- 
eram.'"     See  p.  ,'^3 

3)  include,  but  keep  separate,  all  instances  where  fVi  with  either 
case  is  equivalent  to  ai  or  near? 

4)  include  those  instances  of  i-nl  c.  dat.  after  vv.  of  motion 
wherein  a  clear  image  is  presented  of  superposition  consequent 
upon  the  action  of  the  verb.^  Hence  n  579  t.  veKpa  KaTTTrftrfv  and 
the  like  are  included,  but  not  such  instances  as  en'  a\\fjXoiai.v  lovrts 
'  g<^i"g  ^t  each  other.'  The  verb  of  motion  is  always  given  in  the 
Hsts  (sometimes  also  other  words  which  may  aid  the  memory  in 
recalling  the  passage). 

5)  exclude  all  temporal,  causal,  or  other  developed  uses  of  eVt 
c.  gen.  and  dat.  The  bearing,  however,  of  such  uses  on  the  ques- 
tion will  be  shown  later. 

6)  include  reference  to  a  few  works  undoubtedly  of  the  post- 
classic  age,  e.  g.  the  Batrachomyomachia,  the  spurious  Platonic 
dialogues  and  others.  There  is  still  a  remnant  of  respect  for  these 
works,  though  hardly  justifiable.^ 

7)  include,  for  convenience,  under  the  department  of  History 
the  dozen  instances  more  or  less  to  be  found  in  Xenophon's  philo- 
sophical works,  since  for  him  the  department  would  hardly  affect 
the  style  in  tTiis  particular. 

8)  Instances  of  the  case-form  -^i(f),  which  is  neither  gen.  nor 
dat.,  have  been  omitted  altogether.  They  can  offer  little  aid  in 
establishing  a  difference  of  the  cases,  since  it  is  only  by  that  dif- 
ference that  their  own  usage  is  established. 

9)  Instances  in  the  Att.  Greek  inscriptions  down  to  300  B.  C. 
being  few  in  number  (12  of  the  dat.  and  9  of  the  gen.)  and  not 

'  Attention  will  be  occasionally  drawn  to  the  more  striking  or  doubtful 
passages  of  this  kind  in  the  notes  accompanying  the  lists,  but  a  full  account 
of  the  omissions  is  given  in  Appendix  A. 

2  Yet  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Greeks  said  j^pon  {iT^i),  and  that 
this  separation  of  the  passages  according  to  our  translation  or  to  our  view 
of  the  facts  of  the  case  is  only  one  of  convenience  in  this  special  inquiry. 
The  inquiry  is,  not  the  various  meanings  of  'mi  in  English,  but  the  transla- 
tion of  upon  into  Greek. 

*  See  Kiihner's  Gram,,  §447,  for  this  so-called  constructio praegnmis. 

*  See,  for  the  probable  date  of  the  Batrach.,  Van  Herwerden  in  Mnetnos. 
New  Series,  X  (1882),  p.  171. 


alwciys  of  clear  signification,  are  not  included,  but  may  be  found 
in  Append.  B. 

lo)  The  lists  are  arranged  according  to  the  period  and  depart- 
ment of  the  authors,  the  words  within  the  lists  alphabetically. 
Substantives  when  given  in  the  nominative  do  not  stand  in  the 
passage  cited,  but  some  word  of  reference  instead,  which  is  always 
indicated.  References  in  brackets,  either  by  figures  or  abbrevia- 
tions, indicate  those  other  lists  or  authors  in  which  the  same  word 
will  be  found  but  i7i  the  other  case.  For  example,  the  bracket 
[3.  4.  Hd.  X.]  after  the  word  opeo-t  in  list  7  indicates  that  in  lists 
3,  4,  and  in  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  the  word  will  be  found  in 
ike  gen.  case  c.  inl  denoting  superposition. 


I. — Epic. 


a)      Iliad 
(TTi  c.  Dat.  = 

atyapos  A  484  aKpordr^' 

aiixari  X  82. 

aKTii  B  395.      CO  82.      [Hm.  3.  6] 

anT]VD  f  75  KOTtdijKfv.     [Hm.  Hs.  3] 

da-TTtr  A  36  Trj.     [2.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  X.] 

/3^Xc3  ^  202  intaTT}. 

^Xe(f)dpoi(Ti  K  26  ((f)l^avf.  3  1 65 
XevT).  a  364  ^dXf.  ^  398  cTrtTr- 
T(v.  (  2^  I  (TTiKTev.  p.  ^2)^  fx.^vav. 
vJQ  ennrref.  7r45I  0aXe,  t  590 
Xvddrj.  604  ^uX«.  V  54  ex^^^"' 
(f>  358  ^<iXe.     yj/-  309  nlnrfv.     [3] 

/3(i)/xn?  0  240  Traai  ,  .  .  prjpi  fKrjn. 
y  273 /3co/Liory.     [1.2.  3.  Ar.  X.6] 

yalij  r  1 14  Kar/^ecTo.    A  1 6 1.    N  654 

KilTO.  II      310     (v.    /.)      Kt'tmTi(T(. 

413  Kiinnivt.  P  58  i^fTavvva-i. 
8^  Kfipfvov.  4>  1 18  KetTo.  ^876 
irdyr)  (Nauck  COnj.  (Vt).  k  165 
KaTa<Xipas.  a  92  ravvcrafifv. 
T  200  i(TTaadai  (v.  I.  yniT]t,  which 

I  prefer).  Note  that  in  all 
these  passages  yalj/  stands  at 


and  Odyssey. 

Superposition . 

end  of  verse,  where  corruption 
is  easy.  [i.  2.  3.  4.  Th.  X. 
6.  PI.] 

yovvaai  Z  92  6eivai.     273  6es.     303 

drJKev.      I  488  yovveaat  Kadi(r(Tas. 

X5OO.    T4OI  ^v/<6v.    0  55  ^flo-a. 

[X.  6] 
diippM  Z  354  ((eo.     7-  1 01  avTC^  kcous 

e^aXXev.     [Hm.  Hy.  Hs.  4.  X.] 
8ovpa  ship-iitnbers  p  444  k^op^vo^ 

8    enl  Toiai. 
eXKe'i  O  393  fTraaare. 
fOTopi  Q  272  /SdXXoi/. 
f'<JX<^PV  CS'^W'To.    305^oTai.    17  153 

KQT   tip  e^fTO.      160  ^(rOai.     $  ^20 

iarrja-av.      v  1 23.       [X.  6] 
(9i»/i    A    248.      ^  59    k(7to.      ^  408. 

y  5.      »j  290.      i  551.      X  75. 
dpovoiai  n  408  Kadi{^ov.     [Hm.  Hy. 

x.]_ 

Opaxrpco  K  160  flarai.      A  56.      Y  3. 
Upo'iai     A     775     anfudav.       p    362 
X(i\j/ai. 


10 


iTTnoiiv  ^  362  fxaariyas  titipav.    o  182 

^dariv  /3(iX€X'.    See  notes  at  end 
of  this  list. 

laros    mast   n   422    nvTcp,   ^f^XrjTo. 

[Hd.] 
Kap7r<:wrtsl(?)E4S^.   883.   6328. 

p  601.   2  594.   *  489.   a  671. 
o-  258.     X  277-    <^  398. 

KXiafjio'iai  e  436  KadiCov  =  A  623  = 
P  90.      [Hy.] 

koXtto)  Z  400. 

Kpari  r  336  edr]K€v.  E  743  dfTO. 
K  335  eaaaro.  A  4 1  6fT0.  O  480 
e^ijKfi'.       n   137    (OrjKfv.       X    123 

Kporacfiols    (t    378    a/)apvta  =  x    I02. 

[4] 
AtcoTTJ;  A  219  (Tx^^^  X^'P"* 
Xi'^oiy   2  504  itaro.      y  406  (car    ap 

(C(TO.       408    01  J,    tfeo-(c«i'.        5   6 

Ka^rCoi/.      [Ar.  X.] 
\ifieai  Te  kqi  uKrals  M  284  Kf'xvTat. 
Xvyos  I  428  rj)S  eVi  KvKXcoyj/  €v8t. 
fiasco  X  448.    T  483.     [Hd.  /iao-rovj 
p(\d6p(0  T  544  ''''""    "P    ^C^"^^- 
poxXos  I  382  aKpm. 
fiCXrjs  J]  104.       [Hs,] 
viKpio    n     579     KaTTTreorej'.       P    3*-'0 

Tre'ae. 
PfKvs  yU  47  nXXijXot(rt,  K€iaro. 
vfvprj  A  1 1 8  KareKoapfi  okttov.    0  324 

I'jjvo-i  B  351  e/Sati/ov.  O  388.  ^414 
VT)\  Kardea-av.  to  419  Tidevres. 
In    G    222,    A    5,    600,    K    408 

whether  superpos.  or  prox- 
imity is  meant  is  uncertain, 
[i.  2.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  Th.  X.] 

ofo)  B  312  ofo)  in   aKpoTarcp.     [Kur.] 
Sits  E  141  aXXj]Xr)(n,  Kexvvrai. 
op.paa-1  K  gi  i^dvei.     €  492  ;^€Vf.     [3] 


opt(T(Ti  E  523  (OTTjcrfv.  See  also 
the  list  of  proper  names  be- 
low.    [Soph.  Ar.  Hd.  X.] 

ouSei  E  734  Karix^viv.      6  385  Kare- 

Xivev.      T  ^2. 
ovSoj      {yijpaos^     X     60.        Q     487. 

o  348. 
oxri  ;x  200  aXfiy^ra, 
ocppvat   Y  151    Ka^rto;/   (of  a    hill). 

Of  the  face,  O  102.     '^  396. 
5^^.'?  *  17-     [^0 

Trefj;  Q,  2"]  2  KartdrjKav  (fvyoV). 
rr«'rp,»;  ET  407  KadTjpfvos.      429.      [2. 

Eur.  Ar.] 
nrjxfi-  (of  a  bow)  0  419. 

Trpo^oXo)  p  25 1. 

nvXtjai  r  149  (laro.  2  275  (TavlSfs 
fVt  T);f  opapviai. 

TTi'/jyw  r  153  ^i/r'.  384.  z  431. 
X  97  f'pflaas.     [Hm.  Hs.  Eur.] 

pvpos    E    729    "*cpa>    5^a€.      Q    271 

pvpo),  KaTfBrjKav. 
(TCLKOS  H  246  avT<o. 
(TKoneXoiai  p  239  tninnv. 
(TTtjdeaat   A  420.      I  49O.      M  15I. 

2  317.      *    254.      'J'  18    df'pfvos. 

727  KawTveae. 

<yx^iv^  A  462.    y  459. 

rdXapoi  8  1 34  ai'roj. 

Tfixf'i  X  463  earrj.     [X.     Cf.  Teixio>v 

Eupolis] 

TpoiTis    »/Se    (cat   tOTOf  /*  425  <C°M*''*'^ 

S'  fVt  Toij.     [Hm.  Eur.] 

Tvp^co   B  793  iCe.       A  371.      P  434. 

X  77  nfj^ai. 
(prjyM  H  60  {^eadrjv. 

Xiijj  hole,  den  x  93  {=at?). 

XfiXii    (SC.  rdcppov)    M  51    *'"■     "Kpfe 

;^.  ((piaraoTfs.      [Hd.  Th.] 
;^ep(rt     5     21 3    x^^^*'"'''^"'        '^     23O. 

[2.  Hd.] 


II 


xSovi  A  S8.  r  8g  diro6e(T0ai.  I95. 
A   443.       Z    213    Kmf'nrj^ev    (tpi 

Bekker,  Christ,  Leaf,  F'aesi 
and   others).      473   KUTid^K^v. 

Q  73  ((eadrjv.  M  I58  KaT(;(evtp. 
P  550.  2  461.  Y  483  nuTai. 
<I>   426   KfiTO.      Sir    y^l    Kamreaov. 

a  196.      C  153-       n  67.  307- 

6  222.     t  89.     X  461.     fi  191. 
TT  439.      o)  535  n'tTTTe.      [l.  3] 
XiTcixn  >!>  31. 

XPOI    P    210    T]pfXO(Te, 

ylrajj-adois  A  486  vrja  epvaaav.  ^  853 
'4(TTr}(Tav.  y  38  18pvaei>.  v  1 19 
•^np.ad(o,  Wf(Tav.  284  €Keifir]v. 
X  387  Kexvi/rat. 

«S/ioif  o  61  jSaXeTo.  [Hni.  3.  Hd. 
6.  PL] 


Proper  Names  and  References 
to  Persons. 

l(pi8diJ.avTi  A  261. 
KaXXtKoXwyr/  Y  53. 
"Oaarj  X  315  6ip.(.v. 
OvXvujro)  X  315  Gfpiv. 
YlnrpoKXco  P  706. 
aXX7;Xot(rt   X   3^9  pvT](XTfipfs  .  .  .  Kt- 

XVVTO.        [P^'J 

avTif  (of  various  persons)  S  419. 
n  661.  12  666.  A  470.  p  236, 
where  note  contrast  with  xnro. 
^  381  (?).     o)  525.     Also   in 

the    phrase    apa^rjat    8e    reCxe' 
eV   aira   A  504.      E  (42).      58. 

294.   540.      e   260.     N   187. 

P50.    311.      a,  525. 
rw    E    101  =  283  =  347.      *■    188. 
Q  445  Totat. 


Despite  varying  opinion  I  have  here  and  throughout  put  the 
words  /3co/:ioy  and  iaxapa  under  the  head  of  superposition  rather 
than  of  proximity.  For  whenever  fire  is  mentioned,  it  is  clearly 
a  case  of  superpos.,  while  elsewhere  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
the  ^oifios  regularly  presented  a  foundation  7i/>0fi  which  the  sacri- 
ficers  stood,  and  that  the  iaxapa  was  in  all  likelihood  surrounded 
with  a  paved  space  upon  which,  e.  g.  suppliants  sat.     Else  why 

the    mention    of  ashes    in   r^    153   &>?   etVcbz'   /car'  lip'  efer'  in     ((Txdpj)    ev 

KOVirjCriV  ? 

In  innouu  of  the  above  list  Giseke  in  Ebeling's  Lex.  Homer. 
sees  the  genitive.  And  it  is  true  that  except  once  in  Aesch.  eTri 
always  takes  the  genitive  of  this  word.  But  ^aXXw  in  o  182  can 
hardly  take  the  gen.,*  nor  would  that  construction  be  supported 
by  the  usage  of  fVi/SdXXa)  (4  times  in  Hm.),  for  in  the  only  passage 
where  the  gen.  appears  with  it  (z  68)  the  verb  is  in  the  middle 
voice. 

In  B  89  TTtTOVTOi  en'  uv6eai,  ini  is  '  tOwards.'  So  tOO  in  'I'  82 1  en 
aiixevi  Kvpe.  In  r/  I20— 21  oyxvt]  in  oyxvr)  yrjpdaKei,  fxijXov  S'  en\  p.Tj\a), 
airap  e'nl  (TracfivXr)  (TTacJivXTj,  avuov   S'    en\   avKca,  the  image  of  SUperpos. 

is  almost  as  strong  (yrjpuaKfi  =  ninrti)  as  in  the  phrases  no'ipav  (popov, 


'  See  infra  p.  56 


12 


oXyta,  Kvdns,  ovo^ia,  Kpdroi)  dflvai  e'ni  rivi  (A  5O9.  E  384.  Z  357.  ■*■  4OO. 
406.  6  554.  X  560.  T  592),  or  in  eVt  awfinn  Kvpaas  (r  23).  But  in 
accordance  with  the  classification  they  usually  receive,  I  have 
omitted  them  from  the  above  list.  en\  npodvpoKri  (2  496.  a  103)  is 
also  here  and  elsewhere  regularly  excised  from  the  list  of  con- 
cretes, though  I  should  prefer  to  follow  Gerlach  {^Philologus, 
XXX,  p.  503)  in  understanding  by  npodvpa  a  portico  or  covered 
space  before  the  gates  of  the  court.  See,  however,  Buchholz, 
Homerische  Realieiis  II  2,  p.  96. 


fVi  c.  Dat  =  Proxiniiiy. 


(a)(aTifi  /3  391  (rrfjcTf.  i  1 82.  k  96 
(La  Roche  reads  -rjs,  citing 
I  280).     [Hm.  PI.] 

6vpj]ai  B  788.  a  239  fjo-rai.  x  25O. 
yjr  49.       [Hd.  6] 

Kanrja-i  0  434  KUT(8i]aav.  8  40  Kore- 
8qaav. 

KXr]l(Ti^  n  170.  /3  419  KadiCov^^ 
^  579-  ^  37  Srja-diifvoi.  t  IO3 
KaO'iCov  =:  179  =  471  =  563  =  X 
638  = /a  146  =  0  221=549=: 
V  76. 

KpljVTj   V   408.         O   442.         [HS.] 

Xi'/ifT^  Y  390. 

vrtvai  A  559.  B  4.  A  513.  E  79I. 
Z50.  e  l80yfi/ci)juat.  380.  531 
fyelpofiev.  I  425.  K  306.  38 1. 
A  135.     M  38.     90.     246.    403. 

N    107.       333   Vf((T(Ti.      381.       762. 

832.  ssiKfWo-t.  57.  65.  367. 
o  44.    248.    459.    494.    722 

vUa-a-t..  n  18,  201.  547.  2  7 
Kkovfovrni.  259.  294.  304. 
T  71.       135  vfe(T<Ti.      160.  '    236. 


*  135-    X  334.    Q  254.     S  248.' 

[Hm.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  Th.  X.] 
oSw  z  15.     M  168.     n  261. 

TViipacn  yairjs  i  284. 

TTrjyiJs  B  523.      [Hm.] 

norafjLW    E    59^-        ®    49*-*    nyayoDf. 

[X.6] 

npoxorja-i  P  263. 

Trpvfivijai   e   475.      S   32.      O   385. 

2  76.  447.     [Eur.] 
pTjyfihiA437.   0501.  8430.   575. 

1150. 169.  547.559.  <i86.  ^6. 

0499. 
pof/s  n  719. 

aradpoiai  p  20. 

Ta^pw  A  48.  51.     M  76.  85.     S6717. 

[Hd.] 

Tflxos   H   440    aiiTO).      I    349    avra. 

[X.     Cf.  mxiav  Eupolis] 

(^irvTi  E  271.  Z  506.  K  568  Kari- 
brfdav.  O  263  {Ely.  Magn.  51, 
10  reads  (^uri/;??).  S2  280.  8535 
=  X  411.  Always  at  end  of 
V.  exc.  in  K  568.     [4] 


^  KAr^ldei  =  aKn'/Moi,  not  ^vyd.  So  Doederlein,  Homertsches  Glossariurn , 
§2115,  followed  by  Eberhard  in  Ebeling's  Lexicon,  and  by  Buchholz,  Hotn. 
Real.  II  I,  p.  262. 

'fTTt  VTjvoi  :=  towards  after  eXavveiv  (E  327.  A  274.  400.  0  259.  G  392), 
<b£pea6ai  (0  743),  kyeipnv  (0  603)  and  veeaOai  (X  392). 


13 


'AX^eiw  A  7  1 2. 
'AawTTW  K  287. 
'EWrjanovTco  H  86. 
KeXaSofTi  H   1 33. 
Sav0(o  E  479. 


82. 


2aTPi6fPTi  *  87- 
S/caftac^^o)  E  36  KaduatP. 
"YXXw  Y  392. 
QKfavio  )c  511.      ^  244. 


The  contents  of  this  hst  should  be  noted,  that  its  primitive  con- 
creteness  may  be  compared  with  the  wide  development  of  the 
later  period.     Nine  words  are  the  names  of  rivers,  with  which 

should    be   classed  Kprjpjj,    Xlfxpr],   mjyjjs,    TToraixui,    Trpo)(or]ai,   porjs,  Taippa, 

as  all  denoting  waters  upo?i  whose  margin  the  subject  stands. 
Now  since  the  step  from  i-nX  ;^;€iX«t  Tucfypov  (a  dat.  of  superpos.)  to 
eVl  rdcfypcp  is  an  easy  one,  and  since  the  image  of  superpos.  remains 
as  clear  in  the  latter  as  in  the  former  phrase,  all  the  above  words, 
as  also  68a,  could  be  entered  without  much  forcing  among  the 
dats.  of  superpos.,  leaving  the  present  list  to  consist  of  eleven 
words.  Of  these  eleven,  foxa-rifi  and  ndpaat  (yaltjs^  might  also 
readily  join  the  other  group,  but  that  the  superpos.  of  the  one 
object  upon  the  other,  owing  to  the  distance  of  the  image  called 
up,  fades  away  and  we  descry  only  proximity.  Three  others — 
xaTTT/o-t,  (fxiTPT},  kXtjIo-i — need  historical  interpretation.  As  a  conse- 
quence the  list  almost  disappears,  and  e'nl  c.  dat.  in  Homer  when 
with  concrete  things  is  found  to  present  almost  i'nvariably  super- 
position. 

To  be  excluded  from  both  lists,  because  not  purely  local  or  not 
sufficiently  concrete,  are  tVl  ^oval  z  424.  v  209.  221.  363,  Kreartaai 

E  154.  I  482.  a  218.  o  89,  060-0-t  E  137.  Z  25.  A  I06,  ao'iai  ^  369, 
<^p€fft  A  55.    e  218.    €  427.   X   146.    o  234.    or  158.    (f)  I,  <'ipdpa>TToi(ri  p  60. 


(iri  c.  Gen.  =: 

dyKWfof    K  80  6p6u)6eis.      IT  702  ^fj 

(v.  I.  Irr').      ^  494. 
dypov  a  185  fa-rrjKfp.      I90.     77330. 

383.      ;^  47.      0)212.308. 
dKpijs  {^vpoi)  K   173  la-TaTai.. 
iiKprjs  6  508  epvanpTUi.       [Th.  X.J 

cLKTr^s  Y  50  -(itoj/.  (*  125  La  Roche 
reads  Kab  b'  Zip'  d»cT^f  with  six 

MSS.)        e  82    Kndrjpepos.        I5I 
Kadfiptpos.     K  140  K»Tr)yny6p(a-da, 

[i.  2.  Eur.] 


Stiperposition. 

apa^a    Q     I90    avTijs,    drjaai.        267 

avT^s.       [Th.] 
dirrjPTjs  fi  275  pTjiop  .  .  .  (inoipa,    447. 

f  252  ri'(9«.     [Hm.] 

^utpoiv  bases  rj  lOOearaaap.      [l.  2. 

3.  An  Hd.  Th.] 

yairji  N  565  (v.  I.  dat.).     p  27  yi]s. 

^85/3i<r»^.   <^4i.    [1.3.  X.  PL] 

Sicppov  O  578  Ka8d    .  .  .  flirap.     p  602 
(((t'.    t  97  avroO  =  0  177  =  182. 

o)  408  ?Cfr'.     [Hm.] 


H 


tvvaap  mooring-shnes  s  77  op^iV- 

y)l6vOi     ''if      61       KV/JidT       .    ,    .     KKv^fOKOP 

(La  Roche,  towards). 
fifjiLovav  mule -car  o,  702  kujkpov. 

fjndpoio,  -ov  A  4^5  fpvcraau.    a  1 62. 

y  90.    I  85  /3v/xev  =  »c  56.    ^  136. 

n-  325  fpuo-crai/ =  359.  367. 
6p6pov  A  536  Kadc'CfT.     2  389  /ca^et- 

ati/.      422    tfe.      Q  522    /car'  .  .  . 

fCtv.     e  195  Ka0(^eT  .    rj  162  daap, 

169  €*(r€.     K  314  eio-f.     366  elae. 

<r  157  ''"''   •  •  •  ^ff  •      "^  9^  Kare- 

drjKcv.        cf)    139    (car'  .  .  .  efer'^ 

r66  =  >//'  164.     [Hm.] 
tTTTTcoj'  chariot  E  249.    M  82.  2531 

PaVT€S.      Q    356.       (In    P   459  TOiO-l 

is  perhaps  the  Trojans.) 


249  u^a.     T  238  tdi/Tt.     243  drrf- 
nffj.nop.      259    'iPX*'''  •      339    *<*"'• 

0  39  f  px''M*'"'f  •  V' "  7^  ^<"'''  <i>  1 1 7 

fUfordai.       301  (IX^Xvdas.       [Hni. 

3-  4-  X.  PI.] 
oudov  threshold  a  104  o-t^.     5718 
rte.     ^  62  6'to/x€^'.     p  339  rf€. 

<'"  33'      X  -^^3  i<\>i<TTaaap. 

oxi's>p  e  455.     [Hy.  3] 

nt'jprjs  p  357  KOTfdqKep. 

Trvpyu>v  0519  Xf^acrdai.  I  5^^  /3a«- 
voj/.  M  265.  n  700  TTvpyov  eart], 
*   526   TTvpyov,  f(TTt]Kfi.      All    at 

end  of  V.     [Hm.  3.  Hd.  X.] 

aapihos  <p  5^  ^1' 
cravpoiTTJpos  K   153* 
(r)((8ii]s    e    33*        ^^3    ovTTjs,    nrj^ai.. 
338  iCe.      r,  264.  274.       [X.] 


Kopv(f)TJs  N  12  f](TTO.      A  157  fjp'ffop.  Te\apa>p    A    3^    auroC    (z*.  /.    avrw), 

[2.  Ar.J  fXeXiKTO  SpuKap. 

Xapnrtjp  r  63  avrap,  pr]rj(Tap.  rpdnf^a    A    629    avTtjs    (v.   I.    -ttj). 

fjLf\it)s  X  225  (p(ia6eis.  [4.      Cf.  6.  PI.] 

fiTjpos, -lov  A  i^6l  avrap  8' o}po6eTr)(Tav  Tponios  t  2^8.       [Hm.] 

=:B  424  =  y  458  =  /x  361.  x^'p*^"!'  S  284 /3^T>;i'.     »c459=:X40I 

i/ijwv,    -OS   E  550  enfirdrjp.      [e  528  =408  =  01  III.      t  278  ex^aXe. 

^opeovo-t.]    N  665  e/3at;/e.    17  223  0)291.      AUatendofv. 

drJK  .      0171  dcfiiKfo.      260  (Z^ero.  x^°'''^^    ^    293    KaTf'drjKep.        Y    345 

)3  322  to>j/.     5  489  <5X€7-'.     817  Ketrai  (Barocc.  x^"''0-     ■»■  470 


e/S;;.  6  5OO  /3ai/r€j.  t  535  eX^oi. 
X  115  I'etat.  5*-*^  rjynyov.  534 
f^atpfp.  p.  35^*  »*  216  ot;^o)i'rat. 
^  188  dcfyiKfo.  295  ieacraro.  298 
tTToprjv.  357  f^aipop.  o  452 
riyoi/x  .       547  f/3;;.      p  160  ^pfpos. 


ik^x^e\    [i.  2.  3] 

oipo)!/  A  46.     (c  170  ojpou.     [Hm.  3] 
Bot'TTpaaiov     A    75^     ^rjaafiep     (La 

Roche,  towards). 


fVi  fjjwi'  m  E  700  {irpoTptiToPTo  pekuivi'iuyv  en\  vj)a>p)  means  '  toward 
the  ships.' 

fVt  c.  Gen  =  Proximity. 

(axariiis  e  489  (z;.  /.  dat.).      <t  358.       7r»jyat  X  1 53  aiiTawr,  nXvpui  .  .  .  f'-yyvf 

[Hm.  Hs.  2.  6]  ?a(T..     [Hm.  X.  PL] 

Acpardf  (Xtp/i/or)  t  I40.      p  I02.  346.        ;^;tp(roii  ;;  278  ^irjaaTo  Kvpa.      o  495 
oyfiov  2  557  fOTijKd.  Xvov  larla. 


15 

ew'  ((TxaTiTjs  t  280  (eo-^ff  ....  vfia)  \s  perhaps  bcst  taken  with  La 

Roche  as  '  toward.*     So  nepaav  (neppas)  Pijauyp  tni  <I>  454,  X  45,  though 

Giseke  in  Ebeling's  Lexicon  has  them  =  supra,  in.    Too  proble- 
matic to  be  included  is  a  278  =■  /3  197  U^va)  oaa-a  eoiK(  (piXrjs  sVi  nai86s 

fueffdai.     For  the  forms  in  -cf)iv,  see  p.  8. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  this  last  list,  as  with  the  datives  of 
prox.,  the  image  of  superpos.  is  still  clear,  on  answering  almost  as 
well  as  af  even  in  English. 


b;     Hesiod  and  the  Homeric  Hymns. 
eni  c.  Dat.  =  Superpositio7i. 


hKTois    Sc.    213     r]<no.        Hy.    7,    3 

aKTi,.     [Hm.  3.  6] 

av)(ivi.  5,  217  KetTot.      [3] 
(i\e(f)dpois    Hs.    Frg.    5,    4    niTTTep. 

[Eur.] 

fioval  Op.  434    npoTpov  .  .  .  ^akoio, 
^apois    Op.   136   fp8(iv.       [l.  2.    3. 

Ar.  X.  6] 

ya''.7  3>  339-     [Hm.  2.  3.  4.  Th. 
X.  6.  PI] 

•yXoxro-J?  Theog.  83  ;^€toi;o-ti'.      [2] 
yovvaai    Epigr.  4.       Batr.    3    drJKa. 

[X.  6] 

tpyoii  fields  Op.  549  ar]p  .  .  TfTarai. 
^avfiai  Sc.  233  dnijapevvT' . 

TjXfKTpco  Epigr.  15,  10. 

SeipeXia  2,   II7  avrols,  (drjKf. 

depedXois  [Theog.  816]. 

Kaprjvois  Sc.   236  fSovetTO  .  .  ,  0o/3oy. 

Kapnc^  wrist  2,   1 8. 

AroXoii/w  5,  272,  298.       [Hd.] 

Kpari  Sc.   136    Kvvf'rjv    edijKe.      6,    7 

edrjKav. 
Kpordcfiois  Sc.  137  dpapvlav,       Batr. 

131-       [4] 
pfXeaa-i  Theog.  152  =  673  ('netpv- 

/coi'  =  Sc.  76  =  Op.  149. 

pifS  Batr.  91  avTW. 


vu>T(o  Op.  544  dp(f)i^u\r].  [Hd. 
Th.] 

owSet  3,  149,  284  Kadiacrai. 

ov8(o  (yiypaos)  Op.  33 1. 

°X^TI^>  'Tl^*'^  "''If  Batr.  166  fartjaav. 

223.  247.  [X.] 
[oj^oto-t  5,  19  at  end  of  v.  "lam 
Vossius,  postea  Grashof,  Sxf- 
acfiiv  pro  oxoiaiv  scribendum 
esse  iure  censuerunt."  Ebe- 
ling's Lex.,  s.  v.  oxos  (2).] 
[Hm.] 

TreS/cp  2,  42  OT^y. 

Trerpr)  Sc.  406.     375  dXXqXjjs.     Hy. 

3,  124,404.     [2.  3.  An] 

nXarapavi  3>  1 28  etpvcraro, 

irnvTcp  2,  216. 

Trpoo-wTTfi)  10,  2.      [Hs.  4.  6] 

aTjpaTi  Epigr.  3.     [Hd.] 

Tvp^co  Epigr.  3. 

i;8aTi  Batr.  74.  99.  (In  v.  61  ev 
should  be  read  with  3  MSS, 
Matthiae,  and  Franke.  In  v. 
89  xi(f)',  Bothe's  correction,  is 
necessary  to  the  sense).  [Hd.] 

xdovl  Theog.  556.  564.  Sc.  162. 
462  KtiiS^aXe.  Op.  90.  157.  252. 
Frg.  14,  4.     [1.2.3] 


i6 

•^afiadois    2,329    epvaavTO.       3,    79        dXXijXotf  Sc.  [379]  TreVoi/,  SC.  ai/Spey. 

(ppi\}/(v.  [7] 

<oX«i/.i7  3,  388.  avT^    Batr.    205    dp(i^r)<Te   8e  Tev^t' 

tn    avT<f. 
Ayxi<rj)  4)  ''7'^  vnvov  «x**'** 

f'm  c.  Dai.  =  Proximity. 

fO-^aTtiJ   Theog.    622    ilar  .      Frg.       pddpois  I,  18. 

156,  5.       [Hm.  PI.]  prjyp'ivi  2,  312,  327,  330.   • 

6vpT)(n  2,,  26.    Epigr.  II.   [Hd.  6] 

KpTjvjj  19,  20.      [Hs.]  'AXc^tioS  34,  3. 

ndpaai  4)  227. 

Excluded  from  both  lists  are  ^ovo-i  Theog.  290.  Hy.  3,  200,  316, 
556.  npo^dToioi  3,  571.  ct)peai  2,  197,  356.  4,  1 5  because  either  not 
purely  local  or  not  concrete.  Op.  750  prj8^  tn  aKivfjToiai  Kadi^e'pey 
is  of  problematic  meaning,  while  in  Op.  162  Rzach  reads  v0* 
instead  of  €0'. 

fVt  c.  Ge?i.  =  Stiperposition. 

atapavTos  Sc.  23 1.  vtjos  ThcOg.  998    ayoop.      Op.  236 

dTrT]pT)s  Sc.  273.      [Hm.]  vr]S)i>,    viaaoprni.        Hy.    2,    316 

/3a)/x5i/    Theog.    [557].      [l.    2.    3.  opovaa.    "J,  ID  cio-ai/.    45.    [Hm. 

Ar.  Hd.  Th.]  3.  4.  X.  PI.] 

Sicf)pav    Sc.     306    ^(^aaiTfs.        321        Trpoaanov  Sc.  l/^J.     [Hy.  2.  4.  PI.] 

8i<f)pov,  dope.    Hy.  5, 198  8l(tipov,      ni'pyov  Sc.  242.    [Hm.  3.  Hd.  X.] 
Tjo-T.     [Hm.]  atXpuTos  7>  47'     [3] 

rjndpov  Op.  62^  f'pia-ai.    Hy.  2,310  j^^oi/d?  I,   I33.       20,3.       [l.  3] 

tpvaaadf.      J,  22  d(f)wpfp.  X^P^^  3>  ^^3  f^^T- 

Bpovov  4,   165  KaT(6rjKe.       [Hm.] 

<Xi(r/xoro  5,  193  eSpuiaa-Bai.     [Hm.]  AtjXov  I,  49  f'/3^craro.       II5  ((iaivf. 

Kpjjvdav  Op.  758  ovpelv.       [Hm.  2.  Kiif ^ou  1,   I4I  e^rjaao. 

Hd.  X.]  TeXc^ouo-Jjs  2,  62  /3^y  (sC.  y^y  ?      Cf. 

fivkris  Frg.  22S  dXerpevovari.    [Hm.  AtjXov,  BovTrpaalov  A  756). 

2] 

There  seem  to  be  no  cases  where  fnl  c.  gen.  denotes  proximity. 


17 


2. — Lyric. 

c.  Dai.  =  Superposition. 


atfro?  Pind.  P.  1 ,  7  /ot,  vt:vov  Kari- 

Xfvas. 
aKTaiai  Pind.  P.  4,  36  dnpoif.   [Hm. 

3.6] 

aV^eo-i  Solon  25. 

avxevi  Theogn.  1357  fuyof  .  .  . 
Kurai.      [3] 

jSXec^apoio-i  Phocyl.  (?  See  Bergk, 
II,  p.  72)  K(Wi]Tcu.  Theogn. 
208   fC^To.      Pind.   Py.  9,   24 

■yXi<j)iipois.       [3J 

,:Ja)/.a;  Pind.  O.  6,  70.  (The  MSS 
show  no  iota.  Boeckh,  how- 
ever, says  that  Pind.  did  not 
use  the  gen.  in  a.)  Pind.  Frg. 
129  -ois.     [i.  2.  3.  Ar.  X.  6] 

yaarpi  Archil.  72  TTpoa^aXeiv. 
yXaa-arj  Theogn.  85   f.   y\.   T€   Kal 

oipdaXfioiaiu  enecrTiv  |  al8a>i.   Pind. 

O.   6,   82  86^av   'ex^   '''"'    ^-   jX' 

aKovas  Xiyvpas.      [2] 

dfpBpioi  Pind.  Frg.  230  jSniveiv. 
[Hd.] 

ewaty  Pind.  P.  9,  12  jBdXev.      [X.] 

Kopv(f>aLs  Critias  7, 9  KadiCn-    [Hm. 

X.] 
Kpr]p.vols   Pind.  O.  3,   22  'AXcjiiov. 

[Hd.] 
Xfx^fcrai.     Pseud. -Phocyl.     189. 

[Eur.] 
680J  Pind.  O.  10,  30. 


va-da  Sappho  93.     [Eur.] 

ocraois  Sappho  29  apmeTaaov. 

6(f)daXp.(H<n    Theogn.    85,       See 

yXooaaji  SUpra. 

6(f)pv(n  Anacr.  54  Q^y-^voi. 

oxBais  Pind.  P.  12,  2.     N.  9,  22. 

[X.] 
■naprja-i  Phrynicus  2. 
TTtTitXoiai.  Ibycus  8. 
TTiTpais  Simonid.  58,  2  vaUiv.    [2. 

3.  Ar.] 

npodoJTra     Sappho      lOO      Ke'j^urai. 

[Hs.'4.  6] 
(TT^Xri  Pseud. -Simonid.  183,  4. 

cr(f)vpu>  Pind.  Is.  7  (6),  13  ea-Tuaas. 

[2] 

X(iXi(Ti   Plato    I,  I.      32,  7   ^aivov. 
[Cf.  Hd.  Th.  ;^ei'\€o?  rac^pov] 

;^5o»'i  Theogn.  799.    Archil.  56, 2. 
[Aristot.]  5,  12.     [i.  3] 

"iSa  Pind.  N.  10,  71  TrXa^e  /cepavj/w. 

aX6x(^  Pseud. -Phocyl.   iS6  x^'^P°- 

^aXrjai. 
dvepi  Cleobulina  I  KoXXrja-avTa. 
TTcudi    Pseud. -Phocyl.  210  rpecpeiv 

XclIttjv.      Ion   I,  7  uXXa,  TTea-rj. 
Toin-^ecri  (SC.  irpaypaai)  CritiaS  4,  3 

a(t)pay\s  8    fjfifTeprjs  yXaiaaTjs   fVi 

TotffSeo-t  Kfirai. 


(Tri  c.  Dat.  =  Proximity. 

SiV^o-t  Anacr.  i  x-qQaiov.  ^i^pot?  Pind.N.  i,  i9€crrai'.  [Hd.6] 

tfjxapri  Semonid.  Amorg.  7,  47  Kpava  Pind.  P.  4,  294.     [Hs.] 

etr^iei.     [X.  6]  X[p.vr^  Theogn.  7.     [Hd.] 

icTxmiaiai  Alcaeus  69.     [Hm.]  pvXq  Alcman  70.     [Hs.] 


i8 


noXeai  Carm.  Popul.  44.     [3] 
TTpoxoTJai  Solon  28.     Aristot.  53 

edea-av.      Siuionid.  1 20. 

p(f0pois  Piiid.  0. 13,  35.    N.  9,  9. 

Is.  5  (4).  33' 
prjyix'ivi  Find.  N.  5,  13, 
Tvfx^a  Theogn.  1203  olpaxdeU. 


Z8aTi  Find.  N.  3,  4.     [Hd.] 

'aX0€w  Find.  O.  8,  9. 
Evpina  Find.  P.  II,  22. 

EvpwTo.  Theogn.  1088  7rora/x&J. 
KaaraXla  Find.  F.  4,  1 63. 
Kr](f)i(Ta<o  Aristot.  21  7roTap.oo  deaav. 


Archil.  131  xo^"?"  yap  ovk  exf^s  f0'  w^Ti  gives  no  longer  a  concrete 
image,  hence  is  excluded. 

ent  c.  Gen.  =  Superposition. 


aypoxi  Bacchyl.  49,  I. 
aKp.?ii  (^vpov}  Theogn.  557.     Si- 
monid,  97.  i. 

appLiirav  Hippon.  42,  I  e^'  ap.  re 
KOI   QpTjiicianf   TTcoXcof  I  \evKU)V  la>v. 

Find.  O.  I,  77.     [3] 

darrldos     Tyrtae.    II,     31    (peiaas. 

Find.  P.  8,  46.     [Hm.  3] 

arpaKTco  Adesp.  52  (MS  -ro)). 
^adpidos  Find.  N.  5,   I  eVraor'. 

^(opav  Bacchyl.  13,  3.  [i.  2.  3. 
An  Hd.  Th.] 

ytjs    Tyrtae.    10,    31    a-rrjpLxOeU  ^ 

11,22.     [I.  3.x.  PL] 

■yXoxrcrjjj  Theogn.  815  jBovs  .  .  . 
fiTi^aivav.  Adesp.  87  -a?.  [Hs. 
2.  3] 

aiovoiv  Sappho  30. 

BaKO)  Alcman  87  r^ar'.   So  Bergk. 

[3] 

"imrov  Corinna  14,  i.     [3] 


\ivK'nrna>v  (SC.  apparayv)  Anacr. 
12  B. 

vrjfbv  Simonid.  105,  3.  [Hm.  3. 
4.  X.  PL] 

^vkov  Carm. Popul.  34,  3  Kad^piv-qv. 

6XKd8os  Find.  N.  5,  2. 

TTiTpas  Carm.  Popul.  46,  25  KaOrj- 
pevos  ("circa  OI.  122,  3," 
Bergk).     [I.  2.  3.  Ar.] 

ttmXcov  Hippon.  42, 1.  See  appd- 
Toiv  supra. 

pivos  Herodas  4  m';  •  ■  •  t?)"  x'^^^i" 

.  .  .  ex  •      MSS  plvas. 
pvTiScov  Plato  3O)  2  enecTTiv  epa>s> 
<T(f)vpa)V  Sappho  70  ra  ^pdne   €\kt]v. 

[2] 
TpaxrjXov  Adesp.  22  ^aive. 

X^ipos   Theogn,  490  (doubtful). 

[Hm.J 
xapas  Find.  P.  4,  273.     [Hd.] 


There  seems  to  be  but  one  passage  in  which  proximity  might 
be  denoted,  though  here,  too,  superposition  is  better,  viz.  itoptov 
fTi'  Ev^flvov  Simonid.  (?  See  Bergk,  HI,  p.  516.) 


19 


3- — Tragedy. 


eVt  c.  Dat.  = 

dyKaXats     Iph.    A.     615     bi^aaOe. 

Iph.  T.  i2go}     Ion  761  \a^{iv. 

oKTais   Pers.  9<5j    ("fortas,  H-yniy," 

Wecklein).  Hec.  28.  36. 
698.  Hipp.  1179  (Kirchh. 
and  Wilam.-Mollend.  (mrds'). 
Andr.  1018  -alai.  Hel.  609 
-ajo-i.  739.  Iph.  A.  807.  Iph. 
T.  272.  932.  Eur.  Frg.  636, 
2.     [Hm.  3.  6] 

avTvyt.  RheS.  2j6  ^ait]  {avTvya  ?). 
a^oa-i  Phoen.  1 194  (TTrjdoip  amoves, 
apfiari    Plioen.    IIIO    (T(f)dyi     f)(^a>v. 

[2.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  X.  PL] 
acnvibi  Phoen.  [1120].   1 1 24  tW- 
(TTiiia.     [2.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  X.] 

fiofTTpvxois  Bacch.  757  ''"^P  'ic^yepov. 
^(OfjLols   Aesch,  Suppl.   6p4  d^iar. 

Alces.  133.    [1.2.  3.  Ar.  X.  6] 

ya  Ant.  IJ4  Tvea-e.      [Hm.  2.  3.  4. 

"  Th.  X.  6.  PL] 

y\a>(T(rr]  Ag.  36  (Bovs.    Aesch.  Frg. 

316  kX^s.      O.  C.  10^2  kX^s  .  .  . 

^ejSaAce.      [2] 
SeXro)  Iph.  A.  155. 
Sepvioia-i  CycL  4pg. 
8epr]  Orest.  1653. 

dofioii  Med.  I2yo  TVLTVOVT    .  .  .  a)(r]. 
[3] 

epKei  besel  of  riyig  Trach.  615 

ofifin  OijcreTai. 
f'axdpa  Eum.  108.      [X.  6] 

CvyM  bench  Ag-,   16 18.     Phoen. 
74  Ka&i^iT  .    yoke  HeracL  854 

crradevT.      RheS.  766. 

doKois  Iph.  A.  795.     [2] 


Superposition . 

iTTTToiy    Aesch,    Frg.    38    epnecpvp- 

ixivou     [2.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  X.  6.  PL] 
<dpq  Bacch.  833.     Troad.  937. 

Kapnai  ZVrist  I  On  IOO9. 

KovT^  Alces.   2^4  txy^v  x^p  •  •  • 

Xapcoj'. 

Kpdvii  Eur.  Elec.  4'/o.     [Cf.  Kpa- 

viov  4] 
KpaTi    Ant.  134s  ei(Trj\aTO.      Med. 

1065.  Bacch.  831.  HeLj72 
xepar  edrjKfv.     Herc.  Fur.  640 

KCirat.       [Hm.] 
PT]i    Phil.    891     oinrl    vi]i  .  .  .  novoS' 
Hel.  IISS    vavai,  ve^iXav   (J.  6. 

Helen)  ayutv.  Iph.  T.  nog 
(MSS  fV).  [i.  2.  3.  Ar.  Hd. 
Th.  X.] 

I'coTw     Aesch.     Suppl,    go    ntnrei. 

Hel.     774     T^dvTOV,         842     TvpjSoV. 

984  ru/x/3ov.     [Hd,  Th.] 
oppacri  Aj.  51  ^akoZaa.     O.  C.  /<5<§5' 

^e^iiKi.      Phoen.     950    ^aXoif. 

[3] 

6fj.<paXai  Eum.  40.     [PL] 

6W01?    Hec.   9/5.      Alces.   26g 

((pepnei. 
6(f)daXpo7s   Sept.  403  TTf'a-oi.      Iph. 

A.  5. 

oxOa  Heracl.  ySi.  (For  Choeph, 
4  see  infra.)     [Cf.  o^^ai  X.] 

o;^oij  Prom.  710  valovai.  Troad. 
569-     [Hm.] 

napfjoi  Phrynicus  13. 

nacra-dXct,  Hec.  g20.       [Ar.] 

TTfdco  Heracl.  73"  x^'i^fvov. 
wtrpais  Bacch.  306.     [2.  3.  Ar.] 


'  Italic  figures  denote  lyric,  black  figures  anapaestic  passages. 


20 


TTvpi  Ion  yoy. 

7Tvi)yoii  Ag.  357  fl3a\(s.       [1.3] 
podia)  I  ph.  T.  ^2J  dpap-OfTfi. 
(TfXfiacri  Sept.  32  (TTudrjTf.      [Hy.] 

(TKijirrpoii  Ag.  75.     Orest.  1058. 

[Ar.] 
a-KoneXoidi  lon  87!-    ^479- 
apiKpots    O.    C.    J48   €.    (Tfi.    p.fyas 

wppovv. 
(TTToba.  Ant.   1007  €Tr]KeTO. 
(TTepvois  Ion  995. 
0-ci/uart  Cho.  723.       [3] 
ra^o)    Orest.    471     X""^     x^o/xevof. 

Hel.  986  Keiaopeada.      [Hd.  6] 
Toixoiari  Ion  II58' 

Tpinodi  Orest.  /<5^. 

;^^oi//    Trach.   811.      Hec.   486. 

enl  C.  Dat.  = 
hpovoi^  Iph.  A.  182  KprjvaiaKTi. 

Scoynao-t  Orest.  I2S_^.  Phoen.  ISJS- 
((Txcipais  Alces.  up.     [X,] 
larols  loom  Bacch.  514. 
KWTTi;  Alces.  361.  4S9  -«. 
Xaicfieai  Troad.  690. 
fifXddpois  Here.  Fur.  6pi. 

veKpoi  Aj.   1319- 

oTrXoir  Eur.  Suppl,  674. 

Tvayal,  Eur.  Erg.  77J,  33. 

TToXct    Trach.    246    jSe/Swr    (local 

signif.  is  sufficient).     [3] 
TTvkaii   Prom.   729.      Sept.  631. 

Ant.  141.   Aj.  49.    Alces.  100. 
TTvpa  Troad.  483.     [3] 


Med.  4J4  ^iva  vaieis  x^-    Herc. 
Fur.  849.  Iph.  A.  1587.  [1.3] 

Xpt^fl  Ant.  246  naXvvas. 
\j/afj.ddois  Hipp.  235. 

cop.ois  Trach.  564  ^epa>v.     Phoen. 

1 131  (pf'pwv.     Bacch.  755  edeaav. 

Eur.  Frg.  863  (pepcov.     [Hm. 
3.  Hd.  6.  PL] 

dXX/yXoio-l  Pers.  506  ttItttov.      O.  C. 

1620  apcfyiKeipfvoi.      [Ph] 
yvvT]  Aj.  1295  f<^  l)  ^a^a>i'  •  •  •  avbpa. 
'iXioCTi  Androm.  JOI  ^vyov  fjXvde. 

p.oi  Trach.  gSi  ^dpos. 

napOevoi   O.  C.   1611  aiiTois,  Trrv^as 

.  .  .  ;^et/3af. 
aoi  Eur.  EleC.  I344  "lxvos  ^dXXovai. 

Proximity. 

pr^ypiai  Iph.  T.  253. 
poat?  Phoen.  574.     Hel.  52.   124. 
Eur.  Elec.  1273.  Eur.  Frg.  14. 
aKT^vah  Aj.  3.     Hec.  733. 

(Tuoha  O.  T.  21. 

a-recpdpoiai  Phoen.  ^86. 

aipayjj  Hel.  1 582  ravpeia,  aradeis. 

TfpdpLVOis  Hipp.  5'J<5. 

Tvpi^M  Eur.  Elec.  1326. 

Xevpaai  Phoen.  /pj. 

KvKX(D77etotcri  Here.  Fur.  998. 
^ipoevTi  Troad.  810. 
Tpola  Phil.  353.  611. 


It  is  not  certain  whether  superpos.  or  proxim.  should  be  under- 
stood in  Choeph.  4  Tvp^ov  S'  fV'  '6x6(0  rwSe  K-qplaaa  Trarpi,  and  in 
Soph.  Frg.  342  fitSeis  ivavtpiov  \ipvas  e'0'  v\(/^i]\nis  trTTtXdSf (rtn  (of  Posei- 

don).  The  readings  are  corrupt  in  Herc.  Fur.  1003  e.  Xd^w  Ktap, 
Hipp.  1 195  e<^'  app.aTi,  while  in  Eur.  Frg.  628  eV  eaxdpms  Ammo- 
nius'  citation  has  (axdpas.     To  the  words  regularly  excluded,  as 


21 


e^odois,  npodvpoii,  repfiaa-i,  roTrotr — for  which  SCe  Append.  A,  5 — mUSt 

be  added  Av8o7s  Trach.  356,  Xovrpolo-t.  Soph.  Elec.  445,  ylrvxfi  Ant. 
317,  pimai  Soph.  Frg.  511,  (rTe(f)dvoi(Ti  Phoen.  831,  K(pKL(Ti  Ion  506,  in 
which  there  is  either  lack  of  concreteness,  doubt  in  interpretation, 
or  remoteness  of  metaphor.  In  Aesch.  finally  must  be  noted  (nl. 
in  the  sense  of  towards  ox  for  in  Sept.  423,  714,  1059,  Suppl.  1003, 
Frg.  69. 


ini  c.  Gen.  ==  Superposition. 


dyKvpas    Hel.  107 1.      [^Cl.  (rpiKpols 

O.  C.  148] 
dypav  O.  T.  1049.  Eur.  Elec.  623. 

aKixris  Hel.  897. 

aKpaav     (sc.     SaKTvXcop)     Aj.     I23O. 

aKTrjs,  -as  Pers.  449*    9^S  deivovTus. 
Phil.  272.       Hec.  778  (aKTals  of 

the  same  fact  in  V.69S).  Iph. 
T.  1 170.     [i.  2.3] 

dm]vris  O.  T.  802  e'/i/3f^(as■      [Hm.] 

app.aros    Aesch.    Frg.    38.      [3] 

See  infra. 
ao-TTi'Soy  Sept.  387.  400.  478.  510. 

512.  520.  559.  661.    [Hm.3] 
daTpd^T]s  Adesp.  210. 
avxfvoiv  Pers.  191  Tidriai.     (Orest. 

51  eV  avxefos  ^aXelv  is  SpurioUS. 

Seep.  57.)     [Hy.  2.  Hd.Pl.] 
/3«Xj3iSwi/  Ant.  IJ2. 
^Xecfidpcov  Kur.  Suppl.  284.   [1.2] 
^cojuoi;  Androm.  1 123  eVrj?.    Note 

Heracl.     238    Zevs)    e'cp'    ov    av 

^atpioi-  daKf'is.    [1.2.  3.  Ar.  Th.] 
yr]s  Soph.  Elec.  1 1 36.     Aj.  235 

yuias.      O.T.  113.    416.       O.C. 

7705  ycii.    i'ji2.     Orest.   233 

•yot'ns,  «()/iocrat  TrdSaj.  Hipp.  ^^^^ 
f^aaav.  Alces.  869  n68a  Tve^evav. 
Hel.    ^25     TToba      ;^pi/:i7rTo/iei'os'. 

Troad.  884.     [i.  3.  X.  PI] 


ypapjjiij  Eur.  Frg.  382,  9  eV'  avTJis 

rpeis  Karea-Ttjpiypivai  (z.  6.  'E'). 
So'/xwr  Orest.   1574  I'lKpav.      [3] 

hopoi  ship  Androm.  /pj. 

edpas  O.  C.  85 • 

Farias  Ag.  I435.      [6] 

tTTTTcoj/  Pers.  18.     Eur.  Frg.  675. 
[Aesch.] 

Kavopos  Agathon  Frg.  4  e'^'  fpns. 
KKtpaKos      Iph.     T.      1382      dopav 

(Wecklein  reads  accus.).  [X.] 

KprjTTidov    Here.    Fur.    1008    i'Kftro. 

Ion  38  Tldr]pi.      [X.] 
Xdos  O.  C.  I(?j. 
Xe'xovs  Orest.  313  ptve.      [2] 

vaav  teinples  Eur.  Elec.  6  re'deiKe. 

v€a)s   Pers.   18  vawv.     Phil.  ji6. 

648.       Iph.    T.    102.     1000. 

RheS.     72    ^pwiTKcoi/.      97     veS)V. 

[Hm.  3.  4.  X.  PL] 

vrjuov  Phil.  613  T)S  vaiei. 

^evrjs  O.  C.  184.  563.     Androm. 

136. 

^vpov   Aesch.  Frg.   99,   22   e^rjp 

(so  Wil.-Mollen.).     Ant.  996. 

Here.  Fur.  630  e/S^r'. 

o^coj'  Bacch.  I070t5pi^(ray.  [Hm.  2] 

op.pdTO)v  Ag.  1428.     Eur.  Suppl. 

286     ^aXovaa.        Phoen.      1452 
rlOrjai.      [Hm.  3] 

6p6(f)(ov  Aesch.  Suppl.  6j/. 


22 


3pfa,vO.T.//q5.  [Hm.Hd.X.PL] 

TTfpycifKov  Iph.  A.   y62  (TTliaOVTai. 
nerpas    Eur.  Suppl.  IO45.       [l.  2. 

3.  An] 

TTfTpOV    O.    C     19' 

TToXeo?  — -y^y  Androm.  /j/. 

TTpvfJLvrjs     Iph.    T.     I  177     (Tra6eiiT€S. 

[Hm.] 
TTupSf  Eur.  Elec.  513.     Ion  1258 

(troch.  tetram.)  T^f.    [3.  6.  PL] 
TTvpyav  Phoen.  109 1  «/c/Jco^.    [Hm. 

3.  Hd.  X.] 

TTwXou  O.  C.   312  fif^acrau. 
piTTos  Eur.  Frg.  397  TrXeoir. 

poTrijr  Hipp.  1 163.     [Cf.  Th.  and 
PI.,  also  gen.] 


noonris  Orest.  68  d)(ovp.f6n. 

(TKoKpuv  Iph.  T.  1347- 

awparos  Ag.  1472.       [3.  7] 
rpoTTis     Hel.    412    f(/)      ^r    6cr6}dr)y. 

[Hm.] 
xepa-ov  Aesch.  Suppl.  178. 
xBovoi  O.  C.   1256.     Med.  781. 

Cycl.  543  6eU.     [i.  2.  3] 

Xu>p.aTos    HeC.    5-^4    '"xpov,    e(TTt](T  . 

Orest.  116  (TTas.     [X.] 
Xtopas  Trach.  300.     [Hd.] 
cifxcov  Soph.   Frg.   344.      Orest. 

1532  (troch.   tetram.).     Eur. 

Elec.  813  ^pav.      Rhes.  305. 

[Hm.  3] 


In  Aesch.  Frg.  38  cited  above  s.  v.  app-aros  corruption  seems 
almost  a  certainty.  See  Blaydes  on  Aristoph.  Ran.  1403.  Ant. 
1 141  fx^'''"''  -favdapos  TrdXt?  eVi  vocrov,  even  with  the  aid  of  FIdt.  6,  11 

eVi  ^vpov  yap    aKprjs    fx^'''^''    W*"    ''"    irprjypara,  doCS    not    COnvey  tO  all 

scholars  the  image  of  superpos.,  Jebb  preferring  to  compare  in 

(iprjVTjs.       In  Med.   135  eV    apcj)nTv\ov  yap  eau)  peXddpov  yoov  (kXvov  Weil 

drops  eni,  by  which  "  on  retablit  a  la  fois  le  sens  et  le  m^tre,"  and 
Verrall  asks  why  eVt  may  not  mean  '  in  the  direction  of,'  '  toward.' 

For  Cycl.  384  Koppoiis  nXarelas  ^^axapas  ^aXojj/  em  SCe  p.  c6  •      In  Eur. 

Suppl.  272  yovvdrcov  gocs  of  course  With  dvriaaov,  and  in  Trach. 
1275  the  reading  is  uncertain.  This  is  the  sum  of  the  exclusions. 
For  fTTt  c.  gen.  denoting  proximity  there  are  no  examples. 


4. — Comedy. 

a)     Aristophayies. 

iTzi  c.  Dat.  =  Sziperposition. 

KVTOS  dcopuKOs   Pax    1 235  ^eKapfO). 


[X.6] 


apdeai  Eq.  40J.^ 
yoj-ao-i  Thesm.  1 182 

(cXtiSeo-i  Av.  2j8. 

KoiTius  Vesp.  1040. 
Kopvcjia'is  Nub.  270.     [Hm.] 
KpoK(x>T<i^  Ran.  46. 


\vxv€iM  Frg.  5<5/. 

prjXois  i.  e.  breasts  Eccl.  poj. 

6(pdaXfx(f  Lys.  1026.     Ran.  1247 

-o7s. 
TTerpais  Eq.  783.     [2.  3.  Ar.] 

Utalic  figures  denote  lyric,  black  figures  anapaestic  passages. 


23 


nXevpctls  Vesp.  1293.     [PI.]  x"pt'  Frg.  387,  lo.     [2.  Hd.] 

TrpoXoyoKri  Ran.- I  246. 

o-^jLia  Thesm.  886  e'(p'  <L.     [Hd.]  Taii/dpo)  Ach.  510. 

TpantCn  Ach,  7/55.     [4.  Hd.]  i\\r]\oi(Tt  Pax  901.     [PI.] 

vypa  Vesp.  678.  epavTM  Ran.  9  lixdos  .  .  .  (pfpau. 

Xfi\e(ri  Ran.  6yp.      [Cf.  Hd.  and  ols  Plut.   185  eniKadiCn'^ai. 

Th.  ;^ei'Aeoy  rac^poi;]  trot  Ran.  I046  'TreKadrfTO. 


nvajravKais  Ran.   195" 

^copols    Lys.    1 1 40   iKerrjs   Kade^ero 

[I.  2.  3.  X.  6] 
8r]po(Tloi(n  Eccl.  627- 
8pv(j)(iKTois  Vesp.  552. 

dCpais     Eccl.    865.      997.       1 1 14 

Ran.  163.     Nub.  469.     Vesp 

362.    1482  edcra-ei.      [Hd.  6] 

Kripo'is  Vesp.  754. 
KiyK\i8i  Vesp.  124. 

Kovpeloicn  Plut.  33^- 


c'n-t  £■.  Z>a/.  =  Proximity. 

oiKlaiai  Vesp.  801. 

TTvXais  Eq.  1246.   1247.  1398. 
poaia-i  Thesm.  864. 

(XTopnTi  Eccl.   1 107  Trjs  eajSoXTJS' 

rpaneCn  Pax  770.     [Hm.  4.  Hd.] 
Tvp^cp  Ran.  1139. 


'AprapiTico  LyS.  12^1. 

Ar)vata    Ach.    504   (Sobolewski, 
on). 

UaWabim  Frg.  585. 


Sobolewski  is  sure  that  e'7r'  ifrxapais  Av.  1232  means  at,  not  <?w, 
I  prefer  to  class  it  here,  as  doubtful ;  also  L  Kawms  Eq.  546,  as 
lacking  satisfactory  analogies.  fV  ox6(o  Ran.  1172  belongs  to 
Aesch.,  see  tragedy  supra.  Examples  such  as  Pax  123  KoWvpav 
(liyaXrjv  Koi  k6v8v\ov  o-^ov  eV  avr^  are  not  usually  reckoned  as  purely 
local.     See  Append.  A,  i. 


eni  c.  Gen.  = 
aKp.^s  Plut.  256  (iamb,  tetram.). 

dfia^ris  Plut.  lOI^oxovpe'vrjv.    [Th.] 

dvOpaKCiv  Erg.  68.  135* 
dpfiaTos    Eq.   968.      Ran.    1403 
(from  Aesch.). 

appapa^cov  Ach.  70- 

da-n'^av  Ran.  928  enovTas  (iamb, 
tetram.).     [i.  3] 

^rjpaTOi  Plut.  382. 

/Sw/noy  Pax  938  f(^'  oTov.     Cf.  Eq. 

131 2  Vi  Twv  cr^pvmv  diwv  (troch. 

tetram.).     [i.  2.  3.  Th.] 


Superposition. 

yijs  Pax  896.   ^  [l.  3.  X.  PL] 

SiKcoi'  (as  Kpa8S>v)  Av.  41- 

eXnis  (as  a  ship)  Eq.  1244  ?'(/)'  ^? 

oxovpeda.    Frg.  150,  II  f .  XeTrraJf 
eX.  ax^^O'd  . 

inncov  Lys.  6yp.     [Aesch.] 

KaiOdpov  Pax  81. 

KiXrjTcof  Lys.  60. 

KfcfyaX^S     Eccl.     222.        Av.    487. 

515.    Plut.  1 198.  [Hd.X.  PI.] 
kXiVj??  Lys.  575.  732.     Eccl.  po^?. 
[PI.]' 


24 


KopijfinTos  Frg-  474* 

Kpndciiv  Av.  40- 
Kpenddfias  Nub.  218. 

\ldos  Vesp.  332  f(f)'  ov.     [Hm.] 
Xo0&)i/  Av.  293  (troch.  tetram.). 

[X.] 
\vxvi8iov  Frg.  281. 

fifXias  Av.  y^2. 

fxripioop  (as  ^apLSiv)  Thesm.  693. 
viuii  Ran.  52.     [Hm.  3. 4.  X.  PL] 
^vkov  Nub.  143 1  (iamb,  tetram.). 
Vesp.  90. 

okiyov  LyS.  31  euxero.     Cl.  ayKvpas. 

6pSypAch.82.    [Hm.  Hd.X.P].] 

naTTaXov  Vesp.  8o8.      [3] 

nepiBpofxov  balco7iy  Frg.  133. 

TreVpn?    Eq.    754.     956.       Av.    836 

-&)!'.     [i.  2.  3.  Ar.] 


nivaKos    Plut.    996    firovrn.        [Cf. 

TTlVaKLCTKOlS   4] 

Trpoo-coTTOuNub.  II76.     [1.2.4.  PI.] 
TruyiSiwi/  Ach.  638  iiKpcop. 
pinos  Pax  699  TrXt'ot. 

(TK^TTTpaV   Av.    510.         [3.    Hd.] 

<TTpov6ov  Lys.  723. 

reyous   Vesp.   68.      Nub.    1502. 

Frg.  7/.     Lys.  389  reywi/.  395. 
Toi/oi;  Lys.  923. 
TpaneCn^  Eq.  771.     [4.    Cf.  6  and 

PI.  =  da?ik'] 
rpoxov  Lys.  846.    Pax  452.    Plut. 

875. 

rvpoKVTj(TTi8os  Lys.  231. 

epaKTjs  Lys.  103.   Av.  1369.    Pax 
283.     Ach.  602.     Vesp.  288. 


Eq.  131 2  Ka6t]a6(u  ,  .  .  .  e.  rap  aefivrnv  decov  lias  been  admitted  in 
tlie  above  list,  .y.  v.  fdcopos;  see  also  Th.  I  126,  11  and  Eur.  Heracl. 
238.'  Eccl.  496  e.  tr/cias-  iXdovaa,  besides  lacking  concreteness,  is 
doubtful  in  reading,  Von  Velsen  preferring  vtto  <TKids  and  Sobo- 
lewski  following  him. 

Genitives  of  proximity  seem  entirely  wanting. 


b)     Comic  Fragments. 
eni  c.  Dai.  =  Superposition. 


np^axTL  Ephip.  5,  16  (Kock's 
Com.  Ergs.  H). 

ofjivXois  Pherecr.  108, 17  (I).  Pol- 
lux reading  -aiv.      Telecleid. 

32  (n  -0,. 


eKaTop-^iu  Antiph.   164  (H)  TOiWois 
(^SC.  /3ou(Ti)  (Treredrj. 

uavai  Hermipp.  63,  1 1  (I)  hexam. 

[i.  2.  3.  Ar.  Hd.  Th.  X.] 
oSw  (yr/pcor)  Menand.  671  (HI). 


'In  such  phrases  as  s'lg  (f^',  fy)  ()i6aaKaAov,  TLvdlov,  yeirovoc,  the  explanation 
by  ellipse  seems  now  tobe  losing  favor.  Vogrinz,  for  instance,  //m.  Gram., 
p.  314,  takes  Etc  (fc)  directly  with  ^Al6ao,  ^AOijva'ajq,  ya7>.6uv,  etc.,  where  the 
gen  he  says  expresses  "  etwas  der  Person  Zugehoriges,  ihr  Anhaftendes." 
See,  too,  Schmalz,  Lai.  Gram.,  §113,  Richard  Meister,  Die  griechischen 
Dialekte  II,  p.  297  ff.  In  the  present  case  therefore  (f.  Wewv  the  prep, 
according  to  this  theory  goes  immediately  with  the  gen.     Rather  than  that, 


25 


mvaKla-Kois    Pherecr.   Io8,    14   (I).       rpanify    Philem.  17    (II)    Keinevov. 

Pollux  reading -wf.     [Cf.  jriVa-  Telecleid.  I,  7  (I) -at?.     [Hm. 

Kos  Ar.]  4.  Hd.] 

Trpoo-WTTW  Eubul.  98,  7  (II).     [Hs.  ;^€tXe(ri  Eupol.  94,  5  (I)  eVfica^ifef. 

4.6] 

a-ayfiaXta   Cephisod.  4  (I)   e'cp'   oh  Twfie    (j'^.    ww?)    Cratin.    108    (l) 

.  .  .  errecTTiv,  tTrdo^ova  . 

etri  c.  Dat.  =  Proximity. 

eCjmii  Eubul,  53  (II).     [Hd.  6]       Tt^yuvois  Pherecr.  127  (I). 
'kaxavois  vegeiable-inarket  Cx^i\n. 

49  (I).  2aypa  Alexis  ^^OJ  (II). 

TToppfloicri  Xenarch.  4,  4  (II). 

Proximity  is  perhaps  also  in  Hermipp.  53  (I)  &pa  ndrTeiv  e.  tois 
ifpols.  Menand.  1091  (III)  seems  corrupt.  With  Theopomp.  64 
(I)  KaraKeifievoi  yuaXaKwrar'  e.  rpiKAm'w  may  be  compared  Eur.  Phoen. 

1533  ^'*   ^^f'fiO'l-- 

eVi  c.  Gen.  =  Superposition. 


apa^av      Menand.     396      (III). 

Adesp.  497  -rjs.     [Th.] 
dvdpaKias  Cratin.  143  (I)  hexam. 

(Person's  emend.). 

dvdpaKcav  Ophel.  I  (I). 

Prjparos  Menand.  1121  (III). 
yf,s  Adesp.  352.     [i.  3.  X.  PL] 
Si0pov  Menand.  877  (III).  [Hm.] 
fOTias  Adesp.  463.     [6] 
Kiopoiv  Crates  15  (I). 
KOKpov  Menand.  544,  5  (III). 

Koxaivccv    Crat.    27    (I)    Tcis    rpixas 

Kadeipevai. 
Kpaviov  Cratin.  7  I  (I).  [Cf.  Kpavfi  3] 
KpoTciffiQiv  Plat.  84  (I)  ciKpav.    [Hm. 

Hs.  Batr.] 


padrjpaTos  Amphis.  3  (II)  ea-rrjKwi, 

as  on  a  ship. 

^iXov  Alex.  222,  lo  (II).  Her- 
mipp. 9(1)  oiiTrirSj'^uXtBi/  (prob. 
not  here  official.  See  Append. 
A,  2). 

Trpoo-coTToi'  Anaxandr.  58  (II).  [2. 
4.  PI.] 

Teixiajf  Eupol.  207  (I).       [i-ftx"  I. 

Th.  X.  6] 

rriydvov  Eubul.  76  (II).       [4] 
rpdrreCn    Alex.    26 1,    3  (H)    e'cfy'  tjs 
eV^eiT-'.       [4.  (6.  PL)] 

rpoxoii  Theophil.  7  (II). 
QpoKTis  Adesp.  1 2 19. 


I  should  prefer  the  elliptic  theory,  or  better  5'et,  say  that  Oeuv,  6i6acKalov, 
etc.,  were  new  iudecliiiable  substantives  (in  the  gen.  with  hi,  dat.  with  h\ 
ace.  with  fif),  the  neuter  subst.  didacKaT^ov,  etc.,  presenting  a  notion  as  dis- 
tinct from  that  called  up  by  J^Jdo/caP.of  as  e.  g,  cashmere  the  stuff  is  distinct 
from  Cashmere. 


26 

fVi  c.  Ge?i.  =  Proximity. 
(f)dTPr]s  Adesp.  719,  from  Photius.     [Hm.  X.] 

Menand.  202  (III)  f.  toZ  o-apidlov  is  problematic,  Epinic.   i,   i 
(III)  is  corrupt,  but  has  been  emended  by  Cobet,  Mnemos.  IV 

322,  who  reads  ewaXcjiLToiiTa  for  fV'  dX^iVou  TTivovTa. 


5. — History. 

a)     Herodotus. 

inl  c.  Dat.  ■=  Stiperposition. 

ciKpio  4,  195.    7>  ^5'      [X.J  oiKrj/iara  2,   I48  eKelvoiai.      [X.  6j 

aKp(OTT]p!.a>(T0v  opeos)  J  ,21 J  fyevovTO.  olKo8opT]fj.aTi  2,   121  it. 

[Th.]'  6>6<ri  2,  12.      [3.  4.  Hd.  X.] 

ai;^«Vi(Toi5  BocrTTopou)  4)  1 18'  [Cf.  3J  ov8(p  (^yfjpaos)  3'   ■'^4' 


j8d^P«a  2,  176.     [Hd.  6.  PL] 
^ofxw  4,  35.     [i.  2.  Hd.  X.  6] 

Sopaai  J,  ^l. 

r)p.nTXivOiov     I ,    ^O    e.    tovtokti  .  .  . 

iBpVTO. 

Kavecp  I,   1 19» 

KfcpaXr}   5,  12  (cf.  gen.  in  same 
cap.).     Plur.  in  5,  49.    7,  70, 

72,74.75.76,79,84-     [4-Hd. 
X.  PI.] 

/xeTcoTro)  3)  28. 

eVt  C.  Dat.  - 

8ia(T(pdyi  3,   117  ^i^^«s  •  •  •  icrrrjcre. 
eaXdaar]  2,  159  (2).    3,  17.    4,  13, 

172.  6,  20,  118.  7,  89.     [Hd. 

PI.] 
^i'p,vo-t  3,  16.     [Hd.  6] 
W*"?  9,  51  ^''^'  fi-     [Hs.] 

Xourpd  7,   176  avTo7iJi. 

TToXi  6,  7  "^(Toy  .  .  .  Kfipevrj.       [3] 

TTorana  I,  189.    2,  IO3,  108.   4,  18, 

86,    124.       5,     13,    52    (3    ^     €7T(l(Tl, 

airrw,   w),  119.    7,  124,  154.    9, 

16.     See   also  list  of  proper 
names.     [X.  6] 


nvpi  9,  T20. 

TTvpaplSes  2,  I49  afxiporeprjai.       [-^"J 

TTvpyco  1 ,  181  (2)  fin^€^T]Kf.     [1.3] 

plco  4,  85. 

(TKTjTrTpa  I,   195  eTTfcrrt.       [Ar.] 

rpliToai  5,  59. 

a:'^p?7  5,  77-    [2-  3] 

repaitrro)  9,   I05« 
Taivcipa  I,  24. 

Proximity. 

npoTTvXa  2,  91   aiiroicri. 

TrvXjjcri  I,  89. 

OTO>art  2,   154.    4,  51,  53,  81,  87. 

'ApTepiaico   J,  183.     8,    21    (2),  42 

(2),  43,  45,  46  (2),  66,  76.    9, 

^     98. 

'Ao-cbtto;  9,  19,  30,  38,  43. 

QepfiudovTi  4,  110.    9,  43. 

loTpco  4i  80. 
AaKQij/a  ;^;&)pr7  7,  ^35  ^'^    ''^''JJ   v^oos 

fTTiKeifievrj. 
Arjppio  7i  6  j/^croi  fViKfi'/xei'at. 


27 


Ai^vr,  4,   153  v^aos,   156,  195. 
'ne\onovv}ia(o  3)  59  frjaov. 

2Kin%  8,  92. 

STpv/ioM  7,  25,  75.   8,  118. 


Soyn'cp  6,  87' 

TpioTTio)  7»   153  vi]aov. 
'Yiravi  4,  53. 
Q/tfaj'w  4>  8. 


In  8,  no  e.  Ti^  nXota  and  123  ?'.  tw  3co/xa)  it  is  doubtful  whether  e? 
means  £>?;  or  «/;  in  5,  121  rfjv  e.  MyXdVotcri  686v  it  means  /<?. 

eVt  c.  Gen,  =■  Stiperpositioii. 


dyKvpe'jdv  6,  1 2  i'^ea-Ke.  J,  1 88  upfieou. 

dyoprjs  5)  89. 

.'lypcoj/  I,  17,   120  -ov.    6,  23. 

dKfJ.fjs  (^^vpov)  6,   II. 

d/:id|7;9  I,  3I.     9,  80  -ewi/.       [Th.] 

ap/iaros  J,  4O,   lOO.       [3] 

do-TTi'Sos  9,  74.     [Hm.  3] 

^ddpcov  7,  23.      [Hd.] 

^(Ofioii  I,  183  (2,  ^ueif  and  KarnyL- 

^ov(Ti).     2,  39  f'^   avTov  (T(pd^ovcn. 

6,  81  ^ueii/,   97  (dvixirja-e.      [Hd. 

Th.] 

y€(f)vpea)v  J,  54" 
dnKTi'Xcoj/  6,  63. 
SfXtpiiios  I,  23,  24  fTTewv. 
8fv8pea)v  2,  32  fVedfTos'.       [2 J 
feuyecof  I,  1 99.    4,  46. 
riiovos  2,113.    7)  44' 
LKplav  5>   16. 

Irnrov  2,  162.    3,  86  -coi/.    4'  ^4  '<""> 
no   roi^rcoj/,     I16    -cov.       5»    H2. 

9,  44.     [Aesch.] 

iirrov  mast  S,  122.      [l] 
KaraiTTpaifiaTos  8,  1 18  fTTeoVrcof,  II9« 
K€(f)aXris  2,  35  -emi/.     5,   12  (dat.  in 

same  cap.).     [Hd.  X.  PL] 
AcAiV  I.  182.     [PI.] 

Kvd(fiov  I,  92. 
KoXccvov  7>  44*       C^^'J 
Kpriixvov  4,  103.       [2.  Th.] 
KpvcrrdXXov  4»  28. 


Kv/xaToiyfj?  9>   100. 

\6(l)ov  2,   124  (2),   127.       [X.] 

tir)xav9is  2,  I  25. 

/ia<rToO  3,   133.      [Hm.] 

feo'f,  -wf  5)  33  (2))  3^  inniKfovTas. 
6,  15  (TTilBaTevovTas,  43  f7i''/3(if« 
In  7,  96,  181,  184  e7re/3drevot/. 
8,  92  tV'  ^f,   118  eVi^df.       [l.  3. 

4.  X.  PL] 

vwTov  2,  68.    3,  28.     [3.  Hs.  PL] 

^v\a   1,   186  en'  wj/.    4,  64-0)1/,   IO3 

-ou. 
oj/o)!/  2,   I2Iy    imdeii/ai.. 
ocftios  9>  "''■  ('neareuis, 

opeav  7,  III.     [Hm.  Hd.  X.  PL] 

ttoit;  I,   132  ravrrjs  edrjKe. 
TrXoicoj/  I,  205. 

TTpUipTJS    7'    180. 

TTup^j  I,  86.    7,  167.     [6.  PL] 

pd;^iof  (tov  op(os)  3 1  54  enfovra. 

(TTjKOV    4)    62. 

(xtjfjLaTos  r,  93  dVo).    [Hm.  &  Ep.  4] 

crravpav  5>   1 6. 

o-rt/3d5of  4,  71- 

iTTOi;^ou  2,  125. 

(Tvp^oXrji  (of  fcocTT/jp)  4)   10  (tKprjs. 

rdcfiov  5)  47  l^pvcrdpivoi.       [3.  6J 

Tu(f)pov  4,  201.     [Hm.  Th.  X.] 

Tpdvrefa  6,  I  29  airris  Mp^'jcrnTO.     [4. 

Cf.  6.  7] 

rifiajp  3>  23  nvTov  (nnrXe'fLv.  [Batr.  2] 


28 

v7T(op(r]t  9,   19.  QpriUyjs  6,  33. 

Xfl^fos    (^norafiov)    2,   JO.     4,    141.       XepcropTjaov  6,  39. 

[Hm.      Cf.  2.  4]  iraibes  2,  IO7  (K^ivav  eni^alvopTas. 

Xfipos  2,  141.     [Hm.  4] 

<:;:/a>v  1,209(2).  2,35.     [Hm.3] 

fVt  ^.  Ge?i.  —  ProxiviUy. 

yavitjs  1,51.    8,   122.  BotTTTopo?  4,  87  nvroO. 

6(i\(i<TaTis  3,  5.     [Hd.  Th.  X.  6. 

PI.] 

Svpecov  3,   120.     5,  92  y.      [l.  2.  4. 

Hd.  X.  6.  PI.] 

fTr'  oiKTipaTos  2,  121  €,  T26  would  seem  to  belong  here,  yet  his- 
torical knowledge  on  the  matter  might  give  the  phrase,  at  least 
for  some  early  period,  its  literal  meaning.  See  Append.  A,  6.  In 
koXttov  tov  f.  no(Ti8r)iov  J,  115  the  prep,  is  toward.     For  the  official 

gen.  Tov^  6.  TovT(i>p  eTreunayTas  4,  84  See  Append.  A,  2. 

b)      Thucydides. 
sVi  c.  Dat.  =  Superposition. 

alyinXols  I  7,   I.       [X.]  Ta>:   VHI  69,   I.       [Th.  X.       Cf. 

I'lKpais  Vn  34,  2.    Vni   106,  4  -a.  Tuxiav  4] 

[Hm.] 

apd^ri  IV  67,  3.       [l.  4.  Hd.  X.j  KXtv-q  III   I16,   I. 

^(op6s   VI    3,   I    f0'  M    dvovai.       [l.  'ETTiTToXar?  VI  97,  4.     102,   I. 

2.  3.  4.  Hd.  X.  6.      Cf  Twv  6eS>p  AevKippj]  I  30,  I.    47,  2. 

I    126,   11]  'PiM  II  84,  4.     V  52,  2. 

<V^/x«  I  56,  2.       [Th.]  aW^Xoiai    II    52,    2.      VII    85,    I. 
KprjpvoLS  VI  97,  5  aKpois.      [Hd.]  87,  2.       [PI.] 

i/nufft  IV  ID,  4.     [i.  2.  3.  Ar.  Hd. 
Th.  X.  6] 

eVt  c.  Dat.  =  Proximity. 

6a\ii(Tar)  158,2.       II  9, 4.       IV  26,  I.    78,  3,  5.   102,   I.       VI  65,   I. 

2.    54,1.    57,1.      VI  2,6.      VII  VII    35,    I,    2.    78,3    avTW.     80, 

4,  2.       [Hd.  PL]  5,  6.     84,  2  ni^r«.       [X.  6] 

Xt/ie'o-i  III  6,  2.    IV  54,  4  Xi^ueVt.  oTofjiari.    I    29,    3.    55,  I.      IV    49. 

ttoXlxvu  VII  4,  6.  75,  2.     102,  4.      VIII  90,  4. 

noTapM  I  100,  I.      Ill  99.      IV  50,  Td(j}pcp  III  24,  2.      [Hd.] 


29 


Xfopiov    VII    34,    2    6^'    d>    top^ovv. 

[Th.] 

AlylvT)  I   105,  2. 
ApTffiiaico  III  54'  4" 
Aao-Kcoj/t  VI  66,  2. 
Ar;X/«  IV  101,5.       V14,  I.     15,2. 
'Epcrpia  VIII  60,  I. 
K€Kpv(f)a\fia  I  105,  !• 
KepSv\la  V  6,  3,  5. 
Kp^i/aiy  III   106,  3. 


A^^5aXw  VI  97,  5. 

AaKooviK;/  IV  54 >  4  vi]<jov  iiriKHpLivrji 

Aa  VIII  91,  2. 

Ae.T/3a)  III   16,   I. 

AevKLp-fj-T]  I  51,  4' 

AoKpoLS  II  32  frjaos.       Ill  89,  3. 

MiX/yTo)  VIII  26,  2. 

ni)Aw  IV  14,  5.    28,  3. 

2(cic:)r»7  IV  131,  3.     133,  4  (iVTj'. 
'Erpvp-ovi  I  98,   !• 
TpoTTiM  VIII  35,  3. 


In  four  passages  it  may  be  doubted  whether  superpos.  or 
proxim.  be  meant,  viz.  'Aktlco  I  30,  3.  AevKlp-nj]  I  30,  4.  prjo-a  IV 
55,  I.  'EnnroXals  VII  45,  I.  Two  instances  are  excluded  because 
lacking  concreteness,  viz.  IV  105,  2  e.  to7s  eavrov  pivav.    VIII  86,  3 

e.  Tois  (TcfieTepois   aiirap  pfvdv.      For   the   official   f.   vavaiv   of  II    80,  2 

see  Append.  A,  2. 

eVi  ^.  6^^«.  =  Superposition. 

ayKvpcbv  VII  59,  2.  ^vAa  VI  lOI,  3  avTuv. 

aKpcDTrjpiov  II  93'  4  oi"'oi''      L-^*^'J       ttXoiov  VI  61,  7*    88,  9* 
■y^  (z'^Z  p^wpa)  IV  1 18,  4  e-  tt}?  avraiv       ponrjs  V  I03.  2. 


pe'vfiv.       [l.  3.  X.  PL] 

ladpov  I  13,  5.     [Th.  X.] 

KaraaTpcopdriov  I  49 >  ^>  3  '°^'  VII 
62,  I.    67,  2. 

Xo^coj/  III  97,  2.  105,  I  -01).  IV 
42,  2  avroi).  128,2.  129,4  -ou. 
131,   I   -ov.      V  7,  4   -ov.       [X.] 

fierewpov  IV  36,  2.    V  6,  3. 

i>avs  II  23,  2  avTu>v.  56,  2  -wi'.  57, 
I,  -a>v.  92,  3  -oy.  Ill  8,  I  -f)f. 
102,  4  -wr.  115,  5  -av.  IV 
lOI,  3  -wv.  VI  37,  I  -mv.  91, 
4  -w;'.  VII  25,  I  civTcov.  71,  5 
-S)V.  VIII  74,  I  avT^y.  [l.  3. 
4.  Th.  X.  Pi.] 

varov  IV  4,  2.      [Hs.  3.  PI  ] 

^TJPOV    I     109,    4. 


(TxeSiwi/  VI  2,  4.      [X.] 

rct;^^;^    IV    32,    2.      lOO,    4    avTov. 

V  7,  5.     VII  28,  2.     [Th.  6] 

X^i^ovs  (rris  Tci^pou}  III  23,  2,  4. 
Xayplap   III  97,  2.       IV  I02,  2  e^'" 
o5.      [Th.] 

'ETTtTToAwJ^   VII    43,   4. 

epaV  I  56,  2.  57,  5.  59,  T.  60, 
3.  68,  4.  II  9,  4.  29,  4,  5. 
58,  I.  67.  4.  79,  I.  95,  I,  2. 
IV  7,  3.  78, 1.  79,  2.  82.  102, 
I.  104,  4.  122,  2.  V  2,  I.  12, 
I.  21,  I.  26,  2.  30,  2.  31,  6. 
35.  3.  5-   67,  I.   80,  2.   83,  4. 

VI  7,  3.    10,  4.     VIII  64,  2. 


For  I   126,   II   K(i6eCop(VOVS  .  .  .  .  e.  tS)1>  afpvatv   6(a>v  SeC  SUpVCl  p.  24. 


30 
fVi  c.  Gen.  =  Proximity. 

(f)v\aKrr]piov  IV  IIO,  2.  AaKavm^s  V  34,  2  K^lnevov. 


c)     Xenopho7i. 
eVi  c.  Z?a/.  =  Superposition. 


alyioKa    Hell.  II    4i    ^    KaTfcrTtjcrav. 

[x'] 

oKpa  Hell.  1  6,  26  MaXf'a.  De 
Venat.  4,  8  -atr  rpixas  opdas  (sc. 
Kvvfs  fxovai.).      \_lj 

aKpa  An.  Ill  4,  49.  IV  5,  I  e0 
w.    V  2,  16 -otr.    VII  3,  44-01? 

Hell.  V  4,  14.     De  Venat.  10 

2  -01?  (^SC.  cLKpoKiviois).       [3] 
aKpafila  De  Re  Kq.  6,  7  KamTideTco 

yrj  De  Venat.  12,  6.  [i.  2.  3.  4 
"  Th.  X.  6.  PI.] 

yovaai  Cyr.  VII  3,  5.  [X.  6] 

«V^/x«  Hell.  V  2,  15.  [Th.] 

/capSi'a  An.  II  5,  23. 

«6</)aXij  An.  II  5,  23.   V4,i3.  VII 

4,  4  -ah.       [4.   ild.  X.  PI.] 

KXifjia^i  Hell.  VII  2,  8.     [3.  X.] 

Kprjnis  An.  Ill  4>  10  TavTTj,  irraKo- 
86p.T]TO.      [3.  PI.] 

Xo'(^a,  An.  VI  3,  22.  Hell.  VI  2, 
7!  4,  4.  Vil  4,  26.  [4.  Hd. 
Th.  X.] 

vairet  An.  VI  5,  22  yf(f)vpa  ^v. 


Vivpais  An.  V  2,  12  f'lridi^X^a-dai. 
prjt  Hell.    IV    3,  12.      [l.  2.  3.  4. 

Hd.  Th.  X.  6] 

68<f  An.  IV  I,  20.    2,  6  e(/)'  p,  7. 
6,  26.     Cyr.  V  3,  52. 

OiKLaii  An.   IV  4»   2  €iTrj(Tav. 

op((Ti  Hell.  VI  5i  18  (TvWeyofifvovs. 

Ages.  2,  4  -et.  [3.  4.  Hd.  X.] 
6<ppv(Ti  Koi  Tols  oiipais  De  Venat.  4i  8 
Sxdais  An.  IV  3,  3.     [X.] 

TTvpyoi  Cyr.  VI  I,  54  ai/rc3.     [l.  3] 
(TTTjXr]  Cyr.  VII  3,  16  (TTLyfypd(f)dai. 

(xxeBinis  An.  II  4,  28.     [Hm.  Th. 
PI.] 

Tfix^cTi     An.    I    4,    4    {(f)€(TTr']Kecrav. 

[^Teixi<i>v  4] 
(ppeaTia  Hell.   Ill   I,  7  iTrea-Trjo-ei'. 
Xa>p.nTi  Hell.  II  3,  46.      [3] 

v\j/r]\oTdTQi  (tm)  De  Vect.  4,  44. 
[X.]  ' 

'Ofetw  Hell.  VI  5,  51. 

Tpaof  a-Tr'jdei  Hell.  V  4,  50. 

OVrCp    An.    I    8,    27    CKUVTO. 


ini  c.  Dat.  =  Proximity. 


dpdpavL  Conv.   I,  13  o'rds. 

(ipKva-i  Cyr.  II  4,  25. 
dpxfioii  Cyr.  VII  7,  85. 
/3ao-tX«ioi?  Cyr.  VII  5,  26, 

dpvtpaKTOis  Hell.  II  3)  S*-*  emcTTrjvat,. 

3>55- 


daXaTTT}  An.  I  4,  I,  6.  V  3,  2. 
5,2'.  VI  4,  4  (2).  VII  I,  28. 
2,  36,  38.  3.  16.  6,43.  Cyr. 
VII  4.  9.  Hell.  14,3.  IV  8,- 
26.     [Hd.  PL] 


31 


6vpais  An.  I  9,  3.  II  4,  4.  5'  31 
(2).  Ill  I,  2.  VI  5,  23.  VII 
3,  16.  Cyr.  I  3.  2.  VI  I,  I. 
VIII  I,  33,  34.  6,  10.  8,  13. 
Hell.  Ill  I,  28.     [Hd.  6] 

Kpi'jvri  An.  I  2,  13  60'  p.     [Hs.] 

X./^m  Hell.  II  I,.  23.  VI  2,  7 
((t)u>pfJ.et.. 

vanrj  Hell.  V  4,  44  iyiyvovTO. 

vdirei  An.  VI  5)  ^2  (yevovTo. 

niiyms  An.  I  2,  8.      [Hm.] 

norap.^  An.  I  3,  20.  Cyr.  VII  5, 
II.     [X.  6] 

TriXms  An.  I  4,  5.    VII   I,   17. 


o-Kfji/aif  Cyr.  IV  2,  32.    VII  5,  6 


eyevovTO. 


(TTOfiaTi  An.  Ill  4,  43  ''""''  nXaicriov. 

Cyr.    II    4>    25    -trt    Toji'    nopcov. 

Hell.  Ill   I,  23  aTpaTevp.aros, 
rdcfypa  An.  I  J,   I9.       [Hd.] 
<f)drvrj    Cyr.    Ill    3,    27    -ais.      De 

Re  Eq.  5,  i.     [4] 

XapdSpa  An.  Ill  4,  I  60' »/.     IV  2,  3. 

ATjXt'w  Mem.  Ill  5,  4. 

KaBfieia  Hell.  VI  5,  46. 
AevKTpm  Hell.  VI  5,  24. 

avTo'is  Hell.  V  4,  59. 


ini  c.  Gen.  =  Superposition. 


dypov  Hell.  II  4,  27.    VI  2,  6  -a)!/. 

alyiaXov  An.  VI  4,   I.      [Th.  X.] 

oKpcov  An.  I  2,  21.  IV  6,  18.  V 
2,  I.  4,  26  -ov.  Cyr.  Ill  2,  4 
-ou.   VIII  7, 3.     Hell.  IV 6,  II 

(IKpOTaTOV,      Vll  2,   I  I   -01).       [Hd, 

X.] 

afia^mv   An.  I  7,  20.     II  2,   I4  -rjs. 

Cyr.  VII  3,  I.     [Th.] 

dva^oXris  An.  V  2,  5. 
dfciyeo)!'  An.  V  4,  29. 

apjiaros  An.  1  2, 16.  J ,  20.  Cyr. 
Ill  3,  43.   VI  I,  50.   VIII  3, 

13-     [3] 

apfxapidh]^    An.    I    2,     1 6.       2,     1 8. 

Hell.  Ill  I,  13. 
di-iribav  Hell.  IV  4,  lO.     [Hm.  3] 
^cofxcov  Mem.  I  I,  2.     Apol.  11. 

[i.  2.  3.  4.  Hd.  Th.] 
yiis  An.  Ill  2, 19.     Cyr.  IV  5,  54 

KaTaniTTToi'Tes.    V2,  15'    VII  5) 

12.  De  Venat.  5.  8  eai;r^9.   5, 

13.  6,25eavr^y.      [l.  3.  X.  PL] 
yT]\o(t)os   An.  I  10,  12  fcf)'  ov.    Ill 


4,  28  -ov,  44  -ov.     Hell.  VII  5, 

24  -cav,  KarecTTrjcrev. 
yovdrcov  Conv.  9i  4  fnade^iTo.    [  I  ■  4* 

X.  6] 

8i(f)depa  An.  I  5)   10  rovTcdf. 

di(ppov  De  Re  Eq.  7,  5.     [i] 
Soparos  Cyr.  VII  1,4. 

f'a-xdpns  Cyr.  VIII  3,  12.     [l.  2.  3] 

evvav  Cyr.  VIII  8,  19.     [2] 
(^mniov  De  Re  Eq.  7,  5. 

Bpnvov     Cyr.     VI     I,     6    eKadi^ero. 

Hell.  I  5,  3  e0'  ov.     Conv.  9,  3 

fKade^ero.       [  I J 
innapioiv  Cyr.  I  4)   19- 

tTTTTOV,     -COf     An.     Ill     2,    19.      4,    47, 

49.   VII  3,  26  ou.  4,  4.     Cyr. 

I  3.3-  4.7.25.  Ill  3.27.  IV 
I,  II.  3,  14,  20.  5,49,  54,  58. 
6,  I  (2).  V  2,  I,  17.  VIII  3, 
15.  8,  19.  Hell.  V  2,  29.  VI 
4,  II.  Ages.  2,  25.  De  Re 
Eq.  7,  5.  8,  10.  9,  9.  II,  8. 
12,  I.  Mag.  Eq.  6,  5.  8,  13. 
[Aesch.] 


l^ 


KiifjLrjXoi  Cyr.  VI  2,  18  o)*/.    VII,  I      ttAtij?  An.  I  10,  12. 


48  aiiTciyv. 
KavtWpov  Ages.  8,  7. 
KaTacrTp(i)fi<iTos  Hell.  I  4i   18. 

Kf(f)a\i]s  An.  IV  3,  6.  Cyr.  Ill 
3,  66  T^r  Td(f)pov.  a.  x.eiXeos 
racppov.       [Hd.  X.   PI.] 

KXlpoKos  An.  IV  5,  25.     [X.] 

Kopv(f>rjs  An.  IV  2,  20  eyevovTo.    [2] 
Xt'^or  De  Re  Eq.  4,  4  roi'rwi'.    [l] 

Xo'c^ou  An.  IV  2, 13.  VI  3, 1  r,  12. 
5,28.     Cyr.  VII  3,  5!     [X.] 

HvripdrcDP  Hell.  Ill  2,  I4.      [6.  PL] 
vaav  Hell.  VII  4,  32. 


TT/jXoG  OeC.   IQj  14  "''<"  Karndelrjs. 
TTvpapis  A.n.  ill  ^,(^ravTT]s.    [Hd.] 
7riipyu>f   Cyr.  VII    I.    39    ava^r/vm. 

[X.] 

panrd  Hell.  IV  1 ,  30  av. 

o-ri/Sufioy  Cyr.  V  2,  15. 

rairibav  Cyr.  VIII  8,  1 6  TiOeaaiv. 

Tnx(ov  An.  VI  2,  8.     Cyr.  V  2,  2. 

Hell.  IV  4,  12.   VII  2,  8.    [i. 

Th.  6] 
Tivxovs  Hell.  I  7,  II. 
rpii]pa>v  An.  VI  2,   14.     Hell.  V 

4,  5^  ■oiv.    VI  4)  18  ft)*/. 


vfwj/  An.  I  4,  3.     Hell.  I  6,  35      Tpo;^©?  Conv.  7,  2  ou.    7,  3  -oi. 
avTcbv.   7,  32  -&)j.     IV  8,  21.      v'^T]\ov  Hell.  IV  5,  4.     De  Re 


[i.3.4.Th.X.  PI.] 

V'jaoii'  Hell.  V  T,  2  TToi  d(f}iypei/os. 

^ivrts  De  Rep.  Lac.  14,  4. 
oiKTjpaTos  Cyr.  VI  I,  53  -co;/.    Hell. 
IV  5,  6.     [Hd.] 

opeav   An.  IV    I,   II.    3,  7  -(OS.    7, 
21  -eos,  eye'vovTO.   8,  9  -eor.    VII 

4,  II  -eoy.     [i.  Hd.  X.  PL] 
oxriparos  An.  Ill  2, 19.     Hell.  Ill 

4,  19  -cov.      Ages.   I,  28  -cov. 

oxdai  An.  IV  3,  5  S)j/.     [i.  2.  X. 
Cf.  oxdos  3] 


Eq.  12,  II.     [X.] 
Xiopos  An.  IV  5,  19. 

upoTrXaTai  De  Venat.  5,  30  axnmv. 

epaicr]s  An.  VII  6,  25.     Hell.  I  3, 

17.     II  2,  5.    V  2,   12,  24. 
Noriov  HelL  I  5)  14 ''■po''"'noj'  aTi;(Tas. 
avTuv  (^SC.  a  r]  yrj  (f)vei)    De  Venat. 

5,  8  KaTaKXivovTai. 
erepov    (^SC.  di/Spof)    Cyr.   VII    5,  8 

farrjKois. 

Proximity. 


■norapov  An.  II  5,  18  hv.    IV  3,  28.     Hell.  VII  4,  29.     [i.  Hd.  Th. 
X.  6] 

6. — Oratory. 
eVi  c.  Dat.  =  Superposition. 


a7VX^pn(Ti  Din.  I,  29  eniyeypappevov. 
yovacri  LyS.  18,  lO KUTfdrjKev.  [X.  6] 
ypapparuov  Dcm.  45)  1 8  ^1  yeypd- 

eXTTt'Si    [Dem.]    17    r)K6fT](rav    .    .    . 
dvpovs. 


eniypappart  Isae.  5>  3^* 

earlais  Dem.  Frg.  17,     [3.  4] 

ecTxnTia    Dem.    42,  5    opos   'iiretjTiv. 

Cf.  §§9,  26,  28   xP^<^s  e.  TJj   eax. 

[Cf.   I.  PL] 
depeXlois  Hyper.  4,  6  oiKoBopovai. 


33 


fiv^fiari    Dem.    44,    30    ecpearrjKev. 
Alcid.    Odys.    24    emypafinara. 

[X.  PL] 

veveavievjj.fi'Ois   (toIj)   Dem.  21,  1 8 
(TTfdrjKev. 

oSm  (yj/pwf)  Lyc.  40.  Hyper,  i ,  20. 
opiois  Tov  ^lou  (z.  e.  grave-stones) 

Lyc.  109. 
TTupo   Aesch.    I,    146   («£•   (f)T)(nv  6 

noitjTTjs).      [3.  Hd.] 
T(i(j)a>     Dem.      44»      ^^     e'^ecrTr/Ker. 

[Hd.  6] 

Tet;^€0-i  Lyc.  47"       L^^^*  ■^*  TfiX''^'' 

4] 


cjiuiXais    Dem.    22,    73    yeypanrai, 

gen.  in  same  §.    24,  181.     [6] 

yjrrjCpia-fia     AcSch.    2,    68    (u    eVsye- 
•ypaTTTo. 

'Ep/Li^y  statue  of  H.  Aesch.  3, 184 

fViy/ypaTrro. 

'HSvXeiw  Dem.  19,  148. 

yvvi)    Aesch.    I,    183   €(^'  17  at"   dXto 
dcifjiapTi    Lys.    I,    30   fJ-0L)(6u   Xa/Scov. 

Dem.   23,  55.      Cf.  also   59, 
§§41,  65,  67,  72,  85,  86. 


eV  aKTa'is  is  found  in  an  oracle  supposed  to  be  quoted  by  Aesch. 
3,  112  and  inserted  in  the  text  from  Pausanias.  Isoc.  17,  42 
6\Kd8a  (cf)'  fi  xpw^T  rjv  eym  SeSwKO)/'  is  of  coursc  graphic  (see  p.  8), 
but  if  admitted  to  the  list  would  make  it  difficult  to  exclude  many 
other  instances  only  slightly  less  so.  Dem.  58,  55  rovs  e.  rots 
fioKpois  irXoiois  and  many  similar  phrases,  as  also  Din.  i,  62  6  ?.  r<u 
opvypari  and  the  like,  are  official,  for  which  see  Append.  A,  2.  fVl 
bdpapTi  seems  to  be  an  old  legal  phrase,  and  though  perhaps 
weakened  in  the  classical  period,  must  have  been  literal  originally. 


eVt  c.  Dat.  =  Proximity. 


diKaarr] plots  Lys.  30,  3.      IsOC.  1 5, 

38.     Dem.  23,  63.     [6] 

fpyaarrjpiois  IsOC.   1 8,  9.      [6] 

daXaTTj)  Isoc.  4,  145,  163.     Dem. 
6,12.   23.78,155.     [Hd.    Cf. 

PI.] 

6vpais  Lys.  3,  27,  29.    12,  16  -a. 
Dem.  10,  34.   47,  37  -a.    [Hd. 

6] 
pvijpmi.  Dem.  47,  69.     [X.  6.  PI.] 
oboh  Aesch.  I,  124. 
noTapM  Aesch.  3,  183. 

(TTtjXt]  And.  I,  38  e(f}'  .7. 


rdcfico     Lys.     2,     I     TrapovTfs,     60. 

Hyper.  4,  i.     [Hd.  6] 
Tpanedi  bank  Lys.  9,  5.    Isoc.  17, 

2  -aif,  12,  44,  53  -aty.  Dem. 
19,  114   -ais.     27,  II    (2).     45, 

33-  47.  57,  64.  48,  12.  49, 
17,  42.  52,  24.  [PI.  Cf.  I. 
4.  Hd.] 

'Aprepiaia  Dem.  18,  208.    59,  95. 

Aesch.  2,  75. 
AeX^tWo)  Isae.  1 2,  9.    Dem.  23, 74. 
ATjXt'o)  [And.]  4,  13. 


^  Prof.  Gildersleeve  conjectures  detSavetKuc:,  comparing  Dem.  36,  6. 


34 


Ei/ptVo)  Lys.  24,  25. 
EvpvfifSovTi  Lyc.  72. 
'Hiow    Dem.    13,    23.     23,    199. 

Aesch.  3,  1S4. 
Opaav\\(o  Aesch.  I,  loi.    SchoL: 

€.  Qpac.  8e  ^iTTiKois   dvTi  roii  npos 
Tco  QpaavWov  pvr'jpaTi. 


Aavpico  And.   I,  38. 

naXXafii'o)  Isoc.  18,  52.  Dem.  23, 
71.  47,  70.  59,  9.  Aesch.  2, 
87. 

nnWrjvlm  And.  I,  106. 

npvTavfico  Dem.  23,  76. 

2otii/('a)  Lys.  21,  5- 


'lepw  Dem.  20,  36.     SchoL:  rowos     Tpola  Dem.  19,  337. 

earl  nfpl  rov  'EXXi'ja-noi'Tov.  $uXjJ  Lys.  12,  52.     I3,  77,  79,  82. 

KcoXuiSt  Dem.  59,  33.  Aesch.  3,  187. 


eVi  c.  Ge7i.  = 

dyKvpas  Dem.  18,  28 1  e.  r^?  avTTjs 
{SC.  ay.)  opfjiei.  50,  22  aTToaa- 
Xevfiv.      56,  44  ""f)  opfie7v. 

aypoiv  Isoc.  7,  52. 

a»cr^j  Ant.  5,  44.       [l.  2.  3] 

darrpd^r]!  LyS.  24,  II,  12.      Dem. 

21,  133- 
^(idpcov  Lys.  13,  37.     [Hd.] 
SirjpaTos  Ant.  6,  40.     Lys.  10,  15. 

Isoc.  5,  82,  129.    8,  54,  121. 

12,  143.     Isae.  5,  25.     Dem. 

6,  30.   7,1.    12,  2,  19.    14,  41. 

18,  312.    22,  68.    26,  19.   48, 

31.     5^,   4*-*    ^'    '''^^   SiKaarrjplcDV 
Koi  Tov   0rjp.aTos.      Aesch.   I,  35. 

2,44.   3,167,257.     [Demad.] 

17- 
/3a)/ioC  And.  I,  112.     Lys.  2,  12 
-av.   6,  52  -av.    13,  52.     Isae. 
Pi's-  65  (=Teubner  14)  -S}v, 
fTiOeTo.     Isoc.  6,  68.     Dem.  7, 

40  eniypapixa.      [l.  2.  3.  4.  Hd. 

Th.] 

yfjs   Isoc.  4,  32.     10,   50   dXXoTpias 

{sc.  yijs).     Dem.   19,  267  tcfj' 
?,..     [I.  3.x.  PL] 

yovdrcov     [AeSch.]      Epist.    4,     3. 

[I.  4.  X.  6] 
8ia6fiK7]s  Dem.  45,  21  eV^»/. 


Superposition. 

e'axdpns  Dem.  59,  I16.       [l.  2.  3] 

tei;youf  And.  I,  45.  Dem.  21, 158. 

Tjneipov  Isoc.  4,  35.  5,  112.  12, 
44,   166. 

177770?  Isae.  II,  41  e<^'  ov.     Dem. 

21,  174  dXXoTpiov.     Aesch.  2, 

III  -ov.     [AeschyL] 
KXifTjs  And.  I,  61.     [PL] 
Koppr]!  Hyper.  Frg.  100.     Dem. 

21,  72,  147. 
veas  Lys.  21,  6,  8.     Dem.  17.  27. 

34,  2,  9,  12.    50,  54.    56,  7. 

Aesch.  3,  [52].     [Hm.  3.  4. 

Th.  X.  PL] 

^e'vTjs  Ant.  2,  /3  9  -las.  Lys.  12, 
98.  Isoc.  4,  168.  19,  23. 
Lyc.  25,  124.  Dem.  Epist.  3, 
38. 

otKt'af  Dem.  31,  3  opovs.     [PL] 

ovofidrcov   Aesch.    3,    253   nXeiv   as 

on  a  ship. 

npoaoiTTOv  Hyper.  Frg.  198  enecrTiv. 
[I.  2.  4.  PI.] 

(TKrjVTjs  stage  Dem.  19,  337. 

Teyovs  Lys.  3)11  KOTecTTaaav, 

rpirjpovs  Lys.  19,  24.     Dem.  50, 

52  ec})'  ?is. 

rpo;^oO  Ant.  5,  42.  Hyper.  I,  39. 
Dem.  29,  40. 


35 


(f)ia\S)v   Dem.    22,    73  =  24,   181 

yeypafxfxsvov.  [6j 
(f)opeLov  Din.  I,  36. 
xcojuov  Dem.  31,  3  Spovs. 

Zixcov  ISOC.  19,  39.       [l.  3] 

sVt  c.  Gen.  ■■ 

diKaa-TTipiov  IsOC.  1 5,  49  -a>v.     Isae. 

5,  I,    19,    25,    29.      Frg.   4. 
Hyper.  2,  2.     Dem.   29,   16, 

18.      48,    50.      58,    32,    40     -0)V. 

59,66.     Aesch.  I,  114.     [6] 

epyaarripiiov   IsOC.  7,  1 5.      Hyper. 

3.  33  -ov- 
dvpwv  Lye.  40.     [i.  2.  4.  Hd.  X. 

6.  PL] 


'Ao-ms-  IsOC.   12,  103. 

EvpaTTT]?  IsOC.  4,   176.     5,   152. 

epqKrjs  Isoc.  7, 9.  15, 108.  Dem. 
8,  64.  9,  26.  10,  65.  19,  219. 
Aesch.  2,  9.    3,  73. 

:  Proximity. 

larpeiov  AeSCh.  I,  40,  4I,  [50]. 
pvr'ipaTos  Isae.  8,  27.     [6.  PI.] 
TTorapoi)  Dem.  18,   2l6.      [i.  Hd. 

Th.  X.  6] 
rd(f)ov  [Dem.]  60,  30.     [3.  6] 

Topiav  Dem.  23,  68  a-rds. 
'EfveaKpovvov  Isoc.  15)  287  ^//■^J;(Oll- 


As  doubtful  may  be  reckoned  Dem.  59,  67  eV'  ipyacrrripiov  Ka65>v- 

rni    (see    Append.  A,    6),    Aesch.    I,  74  e.    tS^v  oLKrjpdrcov    Ka6e(opivov, 

Din.  I,  23  in  olKrjparos  earrjaiv,  Dem.  34,  37  t.  r^r  (noas.  Proble- 
matic is  Dem.  19,  156  rdnlreixoyv.  For  official  designations,  as  6  e. 
rov  opvyparos,  See  Append.  A,  2. 


7. — Philosophy  {Plato), 
em  c.  Dat.  =  Stiperposition. 
e.   Phaed.  Z(^b.      kuXois  Timae.  76*?  (nVpoir). 


avxevi  Symp.  I 

[3]   _ 

yevos  Timae.  75  ^  '''°  '''^''  opOpamaiv 
ytvm  crapKcoOJ]  exov  f<p  favr(o  .  .  . 
Ke(f)a\Tjv. 

yfj  Phaed.  111  a  in  avr^  (Bodl. 
Hermann,  Schanz  ;  but  Bek- 
ker,  Stallbaum,  Wagner, 
Wohlrab  read  avTrjs).  Minos 
317  a'.      Epist.  7,  335^.      [i. 


pvrjpaa-i  LawS  933  d.       [X.  6] 
vnvs  Laches  183^  icj)'  fi  inf^drevev. 

[I.  2.  3.  4.  Hd.  Th.  X.  6] 
i/cbro)  Phaedr.  247  d.     [Hd.  Th.] 
opea-i  Phaed.  116  e.  [3. 4.  Hd.  X.] 

ov8co  (yrjpaos)  Rep.  328  e. 

Trpoo-cDTToi?  Symp.  190  a.     [i.  4.  6] 
nvpa  Kep.  614  d.  621  d.    [3.  Hd.] 

aiopari  Timae.  90  a  uKpa. 

V: 


2.  3.  4.  Th.  X.  6.  PI.] 
Ke(/)aXi7  Symp.  212 <?.     Rep.6oofl?     eKda-ra   V Parmen.  131  <5,  ^ 

-ais.      [4.  Hd.  X.  PL]  TToXXotf  J 

K\imis   Protag.  2)^5  d  napfKadrivTo. 

[4.  Hd.  6.  PL] 


36 


daXdrrr}  Rep.  4O4  C. 

di'pai^  S3'iTip.  183  a.  203  d.  Laws 

933^.     [Hd.  6] 
oSw  Hipparch.  229  a. 
otKia  Symp.  174  df.     [6] 
TTTiya'is  Critias  111  d.     [i] 
rpanfCais  banks  Hipp.  Min.  368  b. 

[PI.     Cf.  I.  4.  Hd.] 


eV/  c.  Dai.  =  Proximity. 

[Hd.  PI.]        rpidSoif  Laws  933  b. 


'Apre/ito-iw  Menex  241  a. 
At]\1(o  Apol.  28  e. 
EvpupedovTi  Menex  241  e. 
Arjvaiui  Protag.  327  d. 


eVt  c.  Gen.  =  Superposition. 


aypSiv  Laws  637  a. 

aXoyias   Phileb.  I4  «;  aoo^oipeda   as 

on  a  raft. 

appdrav  Lys.  208  ^  e.  rii'Of  rwi'  dp/x. 

Critias  116  ^  -os.     [3] 
flo-TTaXd^wi/  Rep.  616  a. 
^aOpav    Protag.    315  r.     325  e. 

[Hd.] 

yicf)vpS)v  Critias  116  a  fTncrTrjaavTes. 

y^s  Symp.  195  <?.     Menex  246  d. 

Gorg.   523  e.     Laws  906  3. 

Phaed.  109 ^  aVci).  nob.  114^. 

Timae.   22  c.   d.    43  ^.    44  af. 

59  of.  ^  (2).  80  a.  92  a.    Laws 

728  a.     [i.  3.  X.  PL] 
8i\(f)iv(i)v  Critias  116  ^. 

eXnidos  Laws  699  b  6)(ovpfvoi. 
eaxarias  Laws  842  <?.      [l.  2.  6] 

6aXdTTr]s  Phaed.  109  c  on  surface 

of.     [Cf.  Hd.  Th.  X.  6.  PL] 
"vrnifnv  Menon  93  d.     Laws  789  d. 

Symp.  221  a  -ov.     Rep.  467  e. 

Ufpl  'Apfrfjs  377  b.  [Aeschylus] 
/ce^aX^f  Symp.  212^.    Rep,  617  c 

-S>y.     [Hd.  X.  PL] 

kKivZv     Rep.    372   d    KaTaKeiaBai. 

[PL] 
KoWonwv  Rep.  531  b. 
Kopprjs   Gorg.  486  c.    508  d  (2). 

527  a. 


Kpavlcof  Symp.  195  e. 
KprjniSos  Laws  736  e.     [X.] 
kvkXcou  Rep.  617  b  (2)  apwdfv,  and 

paXdaKoo  Symp.  195  e. 
peaov  Parmen.  138  <:.  d. 

prjxavrjs  ClitOph.  407  a. 

^epias  CratyL  429  e. 

^vXov  Rep.  479  C  ecji'  ov. 

6p(paXov  Rep.  427  C  Kadrjpevos.    [3] 

oxr'ipaTOs    Phaed.  85  ^.     1 13  fl^  tov- 

TCOV. 

nXevpas  Rep.  388  a  quoting  II. 

24, 10.    [4] 

no86s  Polit.  270  a. 

TTpouKecjiaXalov  Rep.  328  C, 

ponas   Locr.   Timae.  97  <?.      Cf. 
Th.  V  103,  2. 

(TKeXoiv  Symp.  1900?  (2,  (TKeXovs). 

(TKXrjpoii  Symp.  195  e. 
apiKpov  Timae.  62  b. 

ari^ddcov  Rep.  372  b. 

(Txe8ias  Phaed.  85  d.     [X.] 
rpoxov  Euthyd.  294  e. 
xapaiCrjXov  Phaed.  89  b  (2). 
copav  Rep.  613  <:.     [i.  3] 

dXXrjXwv  Theaet.  195  a.     [i.  3.  4. 
Th.] 


37 


fTTi  c.  Gen.  =  Proximity. 
rpaneCav  banks  Apol.  \'J  C.      [6.  PI.      Q,{.  4.] 

Doubtful  again  is  eV  oUrjuaros  Kadrji^tvco  Cliarni.  163  ^,  see  Ap- 
pend. A,  6. 

Summary.^ 


Dative. 

Superposition.       Proximity. 


Genitive. 


Homer, 

223 

121 

Hes.  and  Hy. 

61 

II 

Lyric, 

40 

22 

Tragedy, 

105 

37 

Aristoph. 

24 

25 

Com.  Frgs. 

13 

5 

Herodot. 

33 

68 

Jhucyd. 

19 

56 

Xenoph. 

46 

58 

Orators, 

31 

65 

Plato, 

22 

13 

iuperposition. 

Proximity. 

138 

9 

28 

0 

29 

0  (or  I  ?) 

97 

0 

65 

0 

22 

i(?) 

95 

6 

80 

2 

142 

3 

65 

24 

71 

I 

617 


834 


46 


Such  then  is  the  evidence  offered  by  the  remains  of  Greek  Htera- 
ture  down  to  the  time  of  Aristotle.  Simple  inspection  of  this 
evidence  closes  the  first  point  of  the  inquiry  at  once.  The  dative 
case  with  ini  zvas  certainly  2csed  in  Attic  speech  to  express  simple 
superposition.  Of  course  exceptions  may  be  taken  to  the  lists, 
many  of  the  rulings  may  seem  arbitrary  in  the  matter  of  admis- 
sions and  exclusions,  many  cases  may  be  explained  away  on  the 
score  of  phraseology  and  quotation,  as  in\  fiaytapTi,  fVi  y^ypw?  oSw,  and 
others.  But  excluding  these  and  ruling  out  of  the  Attic  court  the 
evidence  of  Thucydides  and  Xenophon,  as  Mr.  Rutherford  does, 
there  still  remain  too  many  datives  to  be  ignored  in  comedy,  in 
the  orators,  and  in  Plato,  free  respectively  from  all  suspicion  of 
parody,  Sicilian  flavor,  and  poetic  flight. 

And  yet  in  comparing  the  words  of  the  Homeric  list  with  the 
lists  of  the  historians,  orators  and  Plato,  we  feel  that  the  atmos- 
phere has  changed.     Objects  are  not  so  concrete,  and,  in  the 

^The  table  shows  the  whole  number  of  instances  given  in  the  lists,  but 
does  not  include  those  words  mentioned  in  the  notes  as  of  doubtful  classi- 
fication, hence  does  not  represent  the  whole  local  usage. 


38 

classic  period,  there  is  a  sort  of  unreality  about  many  of  the 
datives  of  superposition.  Although  their  number  reads  fairly 
high,  we  cannot  help  feeling  that  it  would  not  be  right  to  say  tw 
TTiXov  ex'^"  fT^'  VI  Kf(f)a\^.  Nor  could  the  Greeks  have  regarded  the 
cases  as  a  matter  of  indifference,  else  their  use  of  the  dative  would 
have  more  nearly  approached  in  number  that  of  the  genitive. 
Their  feeling  may  have  been  a  vague  one — one  perhaps  for  which 
they  could  have  assigned  no  reason.  But  since  an  acquirement 
of  the  feeling  for  these  almost  insensible  distinctions  is  the  ulti- 
mate essential  to  a  complete  appreciation  of  any  language,  and 
since  the  search  for  these  more  delicate  distinctions  is  not  consid- 
ered hopeless,  <?.^.  between  uvu  and  Kard,^  between  the  imperf.  and 
aor.,  between  subjunc.  and  optat.,  so  in  the  present  matter  we 
shall  not  lose  hope,  but  take  up  in 

Part  II. 
The  Difference  between  eVt  c.   Gen.  and  (irl  c.  Dai. 

Deyiotm^  Superposition. 

A  brief  examination  of  the  distinctions  set  forth  by  the  authori- 
ties above  quoted  will  suffice  to  show  how  unclear  and  untenable 
they  are. 

Whether  or  not  Kiihner's  distinction  for  Xen.  An.  7,  4,  4  was 
intended  for  general  application  is  not  clear,  as  it  does  not  stand 
at  the  head  of  its  paragraph.  Nor  is  the  remark  itself  clear,  for 
wherein  the  horses  or  Alcibiades'  head  could  exhibit  a  "  Thatig- 
keit"  is  not  obvious.  And  yet  dimly  as  Kiihner  has  uttered  it, 
there  may  be  a  grain  of  truth  in  his  words,  for  which  see  p.  46. 

By  no  possible  mental  strain  can  Kriiger's  distinction  be  applied 
even  to  any  single  list,  much  less  carried  through  the  language. 
We  soon  find  that  the  use  of  the  gen.  to  express  "  eine  mehr 
zuf allige  freiere  Verbindung  "  is  itself  zufallig,  while  to  connect 
the  notion  of  "  Zugehorigkeit  "  with  the  dat.  rather  than  with  the 
gen.  is  to  do  violence  to  all  the  ordinary  associations  of  both 
cases.  How  for  instance  can  the  notion  oi  Zugehorigkeit  be  sug- 
gested by  the  dat.  in  eVi  17X10;/  ilvai  e.  toI^  opea-i  Phaed.  116  e,  nape- 

KadrjvTO  8e  iivTOi   e.  rals   TrXtjcrlov   KXivais    Protag.  315    d,  e.  r^  K€(f)a\^  e^w*' 

^  For  the^distinction  between  avd  c.  ace.  and  nard  c.  ace.  see  J.  B.  Bury, 
TAe  Isi/imtan  Odes  of  Pindar  (1892),  Append.  H,  founded  on  Hermann, 
Opusc.  V  41.     See  Keelhoff  in  Rev.  de  Philologie  for  1892,  p.  157. 


39 

Tar  raivias  SyiTip.  212  ^,  iKeivov  fiev  KartBrjKfu  e.  Tois  yovaa-i  70is  Havcravlov 

Lysias  i8,  lo,  e.  ducdupco  (sc.  OmpaKi)  .  .  .  KadrjfjLsvos  At.  Pax  1235? 
Sobolewski  also,  p.  100,  footnote,  of  the  work  cited  above,  says : 
"  ut  necessaria  est  coniunctio  rerum  in  Nub.  1176  et  Av,  487,  sic 
fortzdta  in  Lys.  1026,  Thesm.  1182,  aliis  multis." 

So  far  is  Kriiger's  notion  from  giving  satisfaction  that  Professor 
Gildersleeve  would  "  expect  the  natural  position  to  be  expressed 
by  67ri  c.  gen.,  the  unnatural  by  the  dat.,"  etc.,  see  p.  6.  This, 
coupled  with  what  he  has  said  elsewhere  {Pi7idar,  Introductory 
Essay,  p.  99  :  "  eVi  is  used  most  frequently  with  the  dat.,  when 
the  superposition  sense  makes  itself  felt "),  is  the  correct  view,  as 
will  be  shown,  it  is  hoped,  later. 

Mr.  Monro's  distinction  seems  only  to  echo  Kiihner's — "  the 
gen.  usually  with  less  definitely  local  force  than  the  dat." — though 
in  clearer  terms.  Yet  no  reason  is  suggested  why  the  gen.  should 
be  used  to  designate  the  "  great  divisions  of  space,  etc."  Per- 
haps, however,  this  is  well ;  for  the  rule  goes  no  further  than  the 
examples.  Why,  for  instance,  should  it  not  apply  as  well  to  aKTJj 
and  6is  as  to  aypov  ?  And  why  do  not  yairi  and  ^^w"  come  under 
the  rule?  And — which  is  yet  more  difficult — how  reconcile  the 
rule  with  the  fact  stated  in  his  Gram.,  §145,  2,  that  the  locat.  dat. 
though  "restricted  to  a  comparatively  narrow  range,"  is  also 
especially  used  to  designate  these  same  "great  divisions  of  the 
world,  the  chief  spheres  of  action,  etc.,  as  alQipi,  oipavco,  ovpea-i,  dypui, 
alyiaXu),  x^'p<^<? "  ?  Mr.  Monro's  second  category  for  the  gen., 
"  where  the  local  relation  is  a  familiar  one,"  is  identical  with  Pro- 
fessor Gildersleeve's  "  natural  position,"  and  as  stated  above 
points  to  the  truth,  although  many  examples  contravene  it,  as 

enl  yovacri  (^Kpari,  KXicrpolai,  dpovotcri,  8L(f>pM,  ii7r)7i'J7) ,  and  itS  reconcile- 
ment is  not  easy  with  the  first  distinction  of  the  paragraph,  viz. 
that  the  gen.  is  less  definitely  local. 

Giseke's  theory  I  have  reserved  for  the  last,  although  histori- 
cally earlier  than  some  of  the  others.  Presented  originally  in  his 
essay  Die  allniahliche  Enistehung  der  Gesdnge  der  Ilias  aus 
Unterschieden  hn  Ge branch  der  Prdpositionen  nachgewiesen, 
Gottingen,  1853,  it  has  appeared  in  a  more  enduring  form  in  the 
article  on  inl  in  Ebeling's  Homeric  Lexicon,  1885.  I  therefore 
give  the  theory  the  space  which  its  prominent  position  claims. 

Taking  up  the  prep,  in'i  (p.  125)  he  says  "  dass  in  eVt  vr)a 
(SaiVfii/  der  Accus.,  seiner  Natur  nach,  den  Gegenstand  bezeichnet, 
welcher  das  leidende  Ziel  einer  Thatigkeit,  der  Endpunkt  einer 


40 

Bewegung-  ist ;  f.  i^rjos  ^aiveiv  hingegen  heisst  '  das  Schiff  betreten,' 
und  der  Gen.  driickt  aus,  dass  derjenige,  welcher  vom  Festlande 
aufs  Schiff  steigt,  in  eineni  andern  Zustand  iibergeht.  Die 
Sprache  fasst  das  Local  Schiff  als  die  Ursache,  welche  diese 
Veranderung  in  dem  Zustande  des  bewegten  Gegenstandes  her- 
vorbringt  und  setzt,  ohne  Riicksicht  auf  die  Richtung  der  Be- 
wegung, den  Gen.  vr]6s,  weil  derselbe  andeutet,  dass  von  dem 
Schiff  eine  Wirkung  ausgehe."  Then  quoting  B  351-52  vrjva-Xv  in 
wKVTTopoKTiv  (^aivov  I  'ApyeZoi  and  translating  the  dative  here  by  "  auf, 
in  Schiffen,"  he  says :  "  Die  Argeier  und  die  Schiffe  werden  nicht 
als  zwei  getrennte  Gegenstande  angesehen,  von  denen  der  eine 
auf  den  andern  wirkt  (wei,  beim  Accus.  eVl  vrja  ^aiveiv,  die  Vorstel- 
lung  '  Schiff'  sich  andert  durch  den  neu  hinzukommenden  beweg- 
ten Gegenstand,  wie,  bei  eVi  i>r]6s  ^alvfiu,  der  bewegte  Gegenstand 
durch  das  Schiff  verandert  wird),  sondern  es  werden  beim  Dat. 
beide  Gegenstande  als  zu  einander  gehorig  und  verbunden 
gedacht."  Proceeding  to  examples  he  finds  that  the  gen.  is  used 
in  K  62  eV'  oidov  eCofxeada  (of  the  Suppliant  Ulysses  and  his  com- 
panions), rj  169  eVl  6p6vov  eio-e  and  Other  passages,  "weil  das  Local 
auf  den  Zustand  der  Person  wirkend'  gedacht  wird."  "  Fehlt 
aber  die  Veranderung  des  Zustandes,  od.  soil  auf  dieselbe  kein 
Gewicht  gelegt  werden,  so  steht  der  Dat.,  wie  bei  den  Freiern,  bei 
denen  es  sich  selbst  verstand  dass  sie  nicht  auf  der  Schwelle 
sassen  (p  90  e.  KXia-fioitn  KadiCov),  od.  von  den  Ruderuden  stets,  z.  B. 
jS  419,  eVi  kXjjjo-i  addiCov,  denn  es  versteht  sich  von  selbst  dass  sie 
sich  auf  die  Ruderbanke  setzten,  und  nicht  anderswohin,  wenn 
sie  entschlossen  waren  abzufahren."  After  other  illustrations  he 
concludes  (p.  128) :  "  Daher  kommt  es  dass  der  Gen.  den  Gegen- 
satz  ausdriicken  kann  dass  etwas  sich  nicht  auf  diesem  sondern 
auf  einem  eindern  Gegenstande  befindet;  cd.  dass  der  Gen. 
den  Ort  mit  besonderm  Gewicht  hervorhebt,  wahrend  beim  Dat. 
das  Gewicht  auf  der  Handlung  liegt  e.  KXia-pola-i  Kddi^ov  und  eV' 
ovBov  eC<'>fieda ;  dass  cndlicli  der  Gen.  dasjenige  hervorheben  kann 
was  zufallig  und  gleichsam  eine  Ausnahme  ist,  wahrend  der  Dat. 
die  sich  gleichbleibende  Regel  darstellt." 

The  first  point  in  this  conclusion  is  remarkable.  eVi  c.  gen. 
tells  us  that  an  object  is  upon  one  thing  and  so  by  implication  not 
upon  another.  Thus  if  we  are  told  that  a  man  is  eV  dypov,  the  gen. 
bids  us  remember  that  he  is  not  ev  aarei.     But  does  not  the  same 

^But  surely  the  time  is  past  for  finding  tlie  causal  notion  in  all  genitives. 


41 

implication  exist  in  the  case  of  the  dat.  ?  If  a  man  be  said  to  be 
6.  vT)i,  we  infer,  with  quite  as  much  certainty  as  in  the  case  of  eV' 
aypoi,  that  he  is  not  on  land.  Spinoza  discovered  long  ago  in 
constructing  his  idea  of  an  infinite  God  that  any  determination  is 
a  limitation  and  involves  the  negation  of  its  opposite.  Any  desig- 
nation whatever  therefore  of  the  place  discriminates  against  all 
other  places.  It  may  be  noted  how  diverse  the  iinpressions  are 
concerning  the  gen.,  for  Giseke  denoting  the  accidental  and  ex- 
ceptional places,  for  Monro  and  Gildersleeve  the  familiar  and 
normal. 

Giseke  then  proceeds  to  cite  and  comment  upon  further  con- 
firmatory passages,  <?.  g".  A  485—86  vrja  /xeu  ot  ye  neXaivav  en'  rjnetpoto 

epvaaav  \  v^ov  in\  ^afia6ois,  "  denn  das  Festland  verandert  den 
Zustand  des  Schiffes,  der  La?id  aher  ist  der  Ort  an  dem  es  ruht"; 

P    357    KaredtjKev  |  avdi,   nodSiv    irpoirapoidev,    deiKeXirjs    em    TTTjprjs,    "  qUia 

mensa  carebat"  (in  Ebeling's  Lex.),  and  others. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Giseke  firmly  believes  in  the  Causal  Geni- 
tive. It  is  this  belief  which  leads  him  into  such  (as  they  seem  to 
me)  absurd  explanations — perhaps  nowhere  more  absurd  than  on 
r  470  TO  8'  eVi  x^o''os  e'^exvd'  vdcop,  where  Eurycleia  has  recognized 
Ulysses  and  has  upset  the  basin.  He  says  :  "  Wenn  aber  Eury- 
kleia  aus  versehen  die  Badewanne  umstosst  und  das  zum  Baden 
bestimmte  Wasser  verschiittet,  so  ist  der  erste  Gedanke  dass  das 
Wasser  sich  verandere  und  hinfort  nicht  mehr  zum  Baden  tauge  ; 
deshalb  heisst  es  en\  x^ovos,  denn  der  Erdboden  macht  in  diesem 
Falle  das  Wasser  zum  Waschen  untauglich,  und  indem  er  es 
somit  in  einen  andern  Zustand  versetzt,  wird  er  als  auf  anderes 
einwirkend  vorgestellt  und  steht  im  Gen."  This  passage,  showing 
the  result  to  which  Giseke's  theory  leads,  is  itself  sufficient  refu- 
tation of  the  theory. 

Without  further  examination  of  opinions  which  all  seem  more 
or  less  vaguely  to  hint  at,  but  never  to  hit  upon,  the  truth,  which 
lies  at  the  basis  of  the  distinction,  the  thesis  of  the  present  disser- 
tation may  be  stated  at  once,  viz. 

The  difference  between  eni  c.  gen.  and  e'lri  c.  dat.  is  a  graphic 
or  pictorial  difference,  not  a  logical  one ;  appealing  to  the  fancy, 
not  to  the  reason.  It  is  a  difference  of  accent  or  of  shading, 
rather  than  of  kind.  Both  give  the  place  upon  which,  but  e-nl  c. 
gen.  adds  no  separate  item  to  the  picture.  It  melts  into  it  as  a 
subordinate  element,  necessary  at  times,  but  still  subordinate. 
Its  presence  may  be  felt,  its  absence  noted,  but  it  is  a  mere  enclitic 


42 

in  the  thought.  Whereas  eVi  c.  dat.  emphasizes  the  place  of  the 
object  or  action,  presents  it  not  as  a  background  but  as  a  second 
feature.  Nor  is  the  place  an  indefinite  region,  anywhere  within 
which  the  object  or  action  lies  (for  this  is  expressed  by  the  gen.), 
but  a  definite  point.  There  is  no  fusion  here  between  the  object 
and  its  environment.  The  iota  of  the  original  locative  suffix  -i 
was  as  strongly  deictic  as  the  iota  of  ovTooi,  pointing  to  this  place 
here  or  that  place  there,  and  to  no  other.  In  the  thought-accent 
the  locative  claimed  an  acute,  and  to  this  the  Greek  dat.,  its 
successor,'  fell  heir. 

With  the  difference  thus  based,  we  see  at  once  the  reason  of  the 
tacts  noted  by  the  scholars  above  quoted,  as  also  the  degree  of 
truth  which  they  severally  reached.  Why,  for  example,  the  gen. 
to  express  the  familiar  relations,  the  natural  position?  Evidently 
because  no  word-painting  is  aimed  at.  In  the  daily  prose  rela- 
tions of  life,  the  Greeks  expressed  plainly  the  necessities  of 
the  case,  as  we  ourselves  do,  reserving  emphatic  expression  for 
poetry  and  passion.  Choosing  the  case  therefore  which  most 
readily  fuses  with  others,  the  one  of  such  general  affinities  as  to 
have  no  obtrusive  individuality  of  its  own,  they  spoke,  e.  g.  of 
going  €^'  tTTTTou  with  no  more  thought  of  the  personality  of  the 
horse  than  we  when  we  speak  of  going  '  on  horseback.'  The 
horse  was  a  mere  vehicle,  the  phrase  well  on  its  way  to  adverbial 

petrification    {cf.  e(j)nrnos)    and    stood  just    as  would    ^paBe'as,  raxeas 

or  any  other  adverb.  But  compare  this  with  the  manner  in 
which  Xenophon  paints  the  picture  of  the  exciting  moment  (Anab. 

I    8,    l)  when   Ilarrjyvas  .  .  .  npo<paiveTai.   eXavvav   avci   Kpdros  i8povvTi  r<o 

tmra.  The  horse  is  no  vehicle  here.  He  stands  out  sharply, 
comitatively,  as  part  of  the  picture. 

Again,  why  is  the  gen.  used  when  two  objects  are  contrasted  ? 
Here  surely  the  dat.  if  more  emphatic  would  be  more  fitting. 
But  it  must  be  remembered  that  not  the  places  of  the  objects  are 
contrasted  but  the  objects  themselves,  designated  more  exactly 
by  mention  of  their  localities.  The  gen.  is  still  adjectival,  as  a 
means  to  an  end.  To  illustrate  from  English — the  merchant  will 
speak  of  his  '  New  York  establishment'  or  his  'Paris  establish- 
ment,' but  not  of  his  '  establishment  at  New  York,'  which  by  pre- 
senting New  York  as  a  substantive  rather  than  as  an  adjective 

'  Delbriick,  Synt.  Forsch.  IV  130:  "  et/  mit  dem  Dativ  ist  natiirlich  nichts 
anderes  als  'fKi  mit  dem  Localis." 


43 

would  lessen  somewhat  his  establishment.  Again  we  say  :  '  Your 
hat  is  on  the  table,  not  on  the  bed,'  yet  the  table  and  bed,  heavily 
as  we  stress  them,  are  hardly  within  the  conscious  horizon  of  the 
picture.  We  know  that  you  are  seeking  the  hat,  not  them.  Hence 
in   Greek,   with  a  proper  accentuation  of  the  thought,  6  e.  t^s 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  present  distinction  is  the  exact 
reverse  of  Giseke's.  But  let  us  see  if  it  does  not  better  account 
for  the  facts. 

In  the  first  place,  it  will  be  granted,  I  think,  that  the  distinction 
which  continues  the  same  through  the  language  has  more  in  its 
favor  than  one  which  accounts  for  only  one  period  of  the  language 
or  in  the  course  of  time  exactly  reverses  itself.  Now  by  making 
the  dat.  the  picturesque  and  emphatic  means  of  indicating  locality, 
the  gen.  the  colorless  means,  we  explain  immediately  poetic 
usage^  and  prose  usage  respectively  (see  the  summary  above), 
and  also  establish  a  distinction  which  runs  through  the  language, 
varying  in  degree  perhaps  in  the  different  departments  and 
periods  and  traversed  sometimes  by  the  habits  of  the  language, 
but  still  the  same.  Whereas  Giseke's  theory  is  on  the  horns  of  a 
dilemma.  For,  holding  the  dat.  to  be  the  unemphatic,  the  gen. 
the  emphatic  case,  it  either  turns  Homer  and  all  succeeding  poets 
into  prose  (Hm.  with  223  datives  against  138  genitives)  and 
makes  the  Athenians  talk  poetry — without  knowing  it  perhaps, 
as  Mons.  Jourdain  talked  prose — or  it  must  admit  and  maintain 
that  the  language  reversed  its  usage.  Neither  of  these  positions 
seems  tenable. 

Secondly,  by  distinguishing  the  cases  as  here  proposed,  we 
shall  not  run  counter  to  all  their  other  associations.  For,  as  seen 
above  in  Delbriick's  statement  of  the  theory  of  preps,  (p.  3),  it  is 
after  all  a  question  of  the  cases,  not  of  prepositions.'^     Thus  if  we 

^Tycho  Mommsen,  Entzuickelting  einiger  Gesetze  fur  den  Gehrmich  der 
griech,  Prdpositionen,  P-  15  •'  "  1^^''  Vorwalten  des  Dativs  gehort  der  alteren 
und  der  poetischen  Sprache." 

^  If  this  doctrine  were  applied  in  the  school-grammars,  cutting  out  the 
chapter  on  preps,  and  their  illicit  intercourse  with  the  cases,  and  restoring 
the  latter  to  their  proper  categories,  the  student  might  acquire  the  Greek 
feeling  for  the  cases  at  an  earlier  age  than  is  now  usual.  For  example, 
what  a  cloud  of  misunderstanding  rises  from  the  boy's  mind  when  first  be 
feels  that  it  is  the  same  genitive  case  in  aladdvo/iai  rivog,  fieuvTjinai  rivo^,  etc. , 
as  in  TVTTTO(iat.  viz6  rivoq — the  verb  in  this  last  instance  being  no  more  '  pass- 


44 

change    ovtos   6   rov  reyovs  '  you    roof-man"  to    ovroi   ovnl  rov   Tfyovs 

(Ar.  Nub.  1502),  instead  of  breaking  up  the  relation  between  the 
two  substantives  we  render  it  closer  by  clarifying  it.  Only  the 
miserable  custom  of  writing  6 — eni — rov  reyovs  instead  of  6  emrovTe- 
yovs'-  has  deceived  us  into  thinking  that  there  were  three  elements 
of  thought  in  the  phrase.  There  are  two  only,  enl  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  case.  The  gen.  would  be  chosen  at  any  rate.  And 
the  two  elements  run  so  closely  together,  the  one  modifying  the 
other,  as  expressed  in  English  by  the  hyphen  (roof-man),  that 
only  one  image  is  presented,  viz.  the  man-on-the-roof."  Again 
we  easily  feel  in  English  the  difference  between  '  I  bought  a  five- 
dollar  hat '  and  '  I  bought  a  hat  for  five  dollars.'  In  the  former 
the  hat  is  the  sole  object  of  vision,  in  the  latter  we  are  balancing- 
two.  In  Greek  the  first  instance  would  show  the  gen.,  the  second 
the  dat.  or  iiri  c.  dat.*  For  the  dat.  stands  off.  Whether  person 
or  thing  (pure  dat.  or  locat.  dat.)  it  stands  there,  not  here,  either 
as  an  interested  onlooker  or  as  the  place  toivards  or  in  which. 
But  there  is  hardly  need  of  a  reminder,  much  less  of  exposition, 
to  show  that  all  our  associations  with  the  two  cases  thus  distin- 

ive '  than  in  the  others.  (Why  indeed  should  a  boy  be  required  labori- 
ously to  acquire  this  notion  of  '  passivity,'  when  in  later  years  he  must 
again  dissolve  it  and  find  that  also  even  the  forms  of  language  expressing 
it  are  fictions  ?) 

1  Though  Max  Muller  may  have  been  wrong  in  supposing  that  formally 
the  gen.  was  a  genderless  adjec,  yet  certainly  its  function  and  our  feeling 
for  it  is  adjectival. 

^  See,  however,  Paul,  Principien  der  Sprachgeschichte,  p.  278. 

*  We  may  compare  this  ovt^X  tov  riyovg  and  the  patronizing  ovtvI  Kpe/uddpag 
avfjp  'your  basket-man'  (Nub.  218)  with  the  picturesque  'Charon  at  the 
oar  '  ovTvl  Kurry  ipyxoTrofiTroQ  .  .  .  Xapuv  (Eur.  Alces.  361). 

*  If  it  be  objected  that  civtI  c.  gen.  could  also  be  used,  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  avrl  is  generally  recognized  as  taking  an  adnominal  gen.,  i.  e.  is 
almost  an  'improper'  prep.  (See  Monro,  Homeric  Gram.,  §226.)  The 
combination  of  a  gen.  with  its  noun  or  verb  in  presentation  of  a  single  idea 
is  sometimes  so  close  that  no  proportioning  of  the  elemental  notions  seems 
possible.  We  cannot  tell  which  is  predominant.  Thus  in  Kdo-ropof  ^Iri 
the  gen.  is  not  merely  a  modification  of  the  nom.,  for  the  succeeding  con- 
struction is  often  masc,  following  the  gen.  So  when  a  boy  speaks  of  a 
'  whale  of  a  ship'  he  is  not  thinking  especially  of  a  whale,  nor  on  the  other 
hand  of  a  whaling-ship.  Be  the  explanation  of  these  gens,  what  it  may — 
and  it  is  certainly  often  wrong,  as  when  Prof,  Jebb  thinks  it  may  be  a  gen. 
of  material  in  Soph.  Ant.  114  /lev/c^f  ;i;idyof  Trrepii}'^  anyavoi; — the  fact  remains 
that  the  complex  presents  one  image. 


45 

guish  them.  Against  Giseke  (who  would  contravene  these  asso- 
ciations) all  that  the  present  thesis  recommends  is  this :  Drop  the 
preposition  and  let  the  cases  speak  for  themselves. 

Thirdly,  by  thus  making  the  distinction  one  of  imagery  and 
representation  rather  than  of  logical  coherence,  we  free  ourselves 
from  the  necessity  of  predicting  with  the  book  closed  how  an 
author  in  any  given  case  will  prove  to  have  expressed  himself. 
For,  on  a  logical  basis,  things  vitist  be  so,  and  not  otherwise. 
Hence  the  chains  of  argumentation  which  the  logical  Giseke 
must  throw  about  the  Protean  Homer  to  compel  him  to  take  on 
a  logical  form.  Hence,  too,  the  widespread  opinion  among 
schoolboys,  painfully  drilled  into  seeing  and  explaining  the  logical 
basis  of  the  various  phenomena  of  the  Greek  language,  that  the 
Greeks  were  the  most  illogical  people  in  the  world.  Whereas, 
regarded  as  imagery,  all  is  plain,  for  all  is  subjectivity.  Homer 
in  a  given  case  felt  the  locality  as  a  mere  background  and  used 
his  brush  in  the  gen.  We,  if  the  same  case  be  given  us,  may  feel 
the  need  of  more  color  in  the  scene,  and  prefer  the  dat.  Both  are 
right,  as  subjectivity  justifies  itself. 

But  on  examination  of  the  lists,  subjectivity  will  not  often  be 
called  upon  to  justify  itself.  In  proportion  to  the  whole  number 
of  examples  the  number  will  be  small  where  we  should  expect  a 
different  case-usage,  or  where  recourse  need  be  had  to  a  vaulting- 
fancy  before  reaching  the  author's  point  of  view.  Due  allowance 
of  course  must  be  made  for  the  individual.  Xenophon,  for 
example,  may  become  flowery,  as  sometimes  other  soldiers  or 
travellers  (one  may  compare  Stanley's  lectures  and  books  on 
Africa).  But  the  broad  distinction  is  this:  Where  there  is  paint- 
ing in  detail,  where  the  march  of  thought  is  leisurely,  or  where 
on  the  other  hand  there  is  excitement  or  pathos — the  mind  dart 
ing  and  insistent — there  we  expect  the  dat.  Where  there  is  but 
one  image  to  present,  all  else  being  subordinated,  there  we  look 
for  the  gen. 

One  further  point  must  be  disposed  of  before  applying  the  dis- 
tinction to  the  lists.  The  phraseology  and  habits  of  the  language 
cannot  be  ignored.  They  will  at  times,  though  rarely,  seem  to 
traverse  the  rule  that  has  been  proposed.  Yet  on  examination 
they  will  bear  good  evidence  to  its  truth.  The  first  item,  phrase- 
ology, enters  the  question  very  slightly.  eV  aypov  (-tov},  for 
example,  runs  through  the  language  (including  Apoll.  Rhod.  and 
Theocr.),  never  with  modifier  and  only  four  times  with  article, 


46 

eVt  Twv  dypS>v.  The  dat.  is  not  used.  The  phrase  is  in  fact  one 
word,  as  much  so  as  emde^ios,  though  lacking  declension.  But 
there  are  only  twenty  instances  in  all.  So  a  few  other  fixed 
phrases,  as  fVl  dvpms  (but  with  exceptions),  eVl  y^pws-  68<2,  eVi  ddfiapri., 
eVi  divL  (pr]y^7vi,  xh^°^'  rjTreipov').  But  few  of  them  are  frequent,  and 
most  of  them  emerge  only  in  certain  departments  or  periods. 
Beyond  this,  phraseology  does  not  disturb  the  question,  ^^wj/, 
yrj,  opos,  oKTT],  alyiaXo?  and  Others  change  with  the  picture  to  be 
presented. 

The  second  item,  the  habits  of  the  language,  may  be  instanced 
by  the  way  in  which  the  notion  of  a  vehicle  upon  which  is  ex- 
pressed, viz.  by  the  gen.  This,  I  think,  is  the  one  grain  of  truth 
which  Kiihner  was  struggling  after  above  (p.  5)  when  he  spoke 
of  the  'Thatigkeit'  of  the  horses,  although  the  example  to  be 
sure  was  an  unhappy  one.  In  the  above  lists  the  following  words 
occur  literally  or  metaphorically  as  the  names  of  vehicles,  always 
in  the  gen.  except  the  underscored  words,  which  are  sometimes 
dat.,  but  in  that  case  for  the  most  part  not  as  vehicles.    Waggons  : 

ciTrrjVT],  ajj-a^a,  appa,  dppdpa^a,  rjplovoi  Viule-Cdr,  ^ivyos,  o)(os,  o)(rjpa, 
KavaOpov.  Add  kKivt],  (popflov,  dirpdjit],  ic^imnov,  K€cj)a\r].  ShzpS .'  pais, 
rpirjp-qs,  irkolov.,  oKuds,  86pv,  axeSia,  ^KpOepa,  rev)(os,  pi-"^,  poTrrj,  poapr),  eXms, 
pddrjpa,  dXoyia,  dvop-ara.  BeCiSts  of  bufden .'  Imros,  iTTTrdpiov,  KeXrjs, 
TToiKos,  ovos,  KdprjKos,  arpovBos,  KdvBapos,  SeX0iy,  rponis. 

On  examining  the  passages  where  the  underscored  words 
appear  in  the  dat.,  it  will  be  seen  that  in  the  following  cases  at 
least   the  objects   are   not  regarded  as  vehicles   for   the  action 

expressed    by   the   verb.        f  75   iaBriTa   .  .  .    KaredrjKev   .  .  .    eV    dnrjvji. 

Aesch.  Prom.  710  TreSapo-ioi  vaiova-'  en'  evKVKXois  dxois  (where  the  sur- 
prising nature  of  the  habitation  requires  the  dat.)  Hm.  Hy. 
5,    19  dpTtd^as .  .  .  eVl  xP'"'^^^'-'^''^  oxoktiv  is   corrupt ;    see   the   list. 

Plat.    Protag.  315    d   napeK.ddr]VTO   de    avrw    eVl    ra7s    ttXtjitloi'    kXivqis   (a 

Defregger  interior,  where  kXIpt]  is  of  course  not  used  as  a  litter,  as 

in  Andoc.  I,  61.     Dem.  17,  20  (rpitjpeis^  koI  o-rpaTTjyov  eV'  avTois  erd^aTe 
MfvsaOea — an  official  dat.,  see  App.  A,  2.     Dem.  58,  55  rovs  a-rparr^yovs 
K.a\  Tovs   67rt   rois  paKpdls   ttXolois — official.      '^  3^^   ^'0     lirTToiiu  pdartyas 
I'Uipav.      o    182   f(j)    Imvoilv  pdariv   (SaXey.      Aesch.  Frg.  38   tTTTroi   8    e4) 
"lttttois  rjcrav  tpTre(f)vppivoi.     p.  425  e^dpevos  S   enl  tois  (^SC.  TpomSi  and  Ictt^) 

<pep6pr]v  dXools  dvepoiaiv — where  the  caesura  indicates  the  proper 
connection  of  to7s  with  e(dpfvos.  For  Ki(f)aXrj  see  p.  52.  B  351 
vTjvah  in  uKvnopoiaiv  e^aivop  is  a  disputed  reading,  eV  being  preferred 


by  La  Roche,  Nauck,  Christ,  Faesi,  and  others.     O  388  ^varoiai, 

TO.  pd  (Tcf)  em  vrjvalv  €K€I.to.  ^  4^4  ''^uvra  ^ipovrts  f'vaae^^iMO  enl  vrjt 
KCLzOeaav.  co  4^9  Tovy  Se  .  .  .  dojis  eVi  frjval  ride'vTfS.  Soph.  Phil. 
891    ovtt\    vr]t  .  .  .  TTovos.       Eur.    Iph.    T.    1 109   fVi    vavcrlv   e^av — where 

the  eni  is  Elmsley's,  as  the  MSS.  have  eVt  and  eV.  Thuc.  IV  10,  4 
eVi  yap  rals  vavai  paaroi  elaiv  ufivvtaOat — locahty  merely,  or  at  any 
rate  with  no  notion  of  a  vehicle.     Xen.  Hell.  IV  3,  12  tVi  t^  vrit 

p.ax6p.ivov  aiTodavfiv — locality.  Plat.  Laches  183  flf  (yaii)  €(/)'  fi  inf- 
fidrevev — official,       Hemiipp.    Frg.  63,    11     e^oXeveifv   pavcrlp   eVi — nOt 

as  a  vehicle. 

In  the  remaining  six  instances  (four  in  poetry,  two  in  prose)  we 
might  expect  the  notion  of  a  vehicle,  but  can  by  no  means  be 
sure  that  such  a  notion  was  intended  to  be  conveyed,  especially 
as  the  notion  of  pure  locality  or  of  instrument  is  quite  as  satis- 
factory. It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  four  poetical  passages 
came  from  Euripides,  viz.  Phoen.  1 1 10  a-(f)dyi  exav  e'^'  apfian  6  fiafTis 

Ap.(f)idpaos ,    Troad.    5^9    ^do'creis    rrjpB       Avdpop.dxr]v    ^epiKo'is    eV'    oxois 

nopdpLfvoixevijp — both  passages  highly  picturesque,  the  chariot  being 
the  first  object  to  strike  the  sight,  like  Xenophon's  sweating 
horse — ,  Rhes.  236  ^duldoiv  8'  imvcov  ttot  eV'  aWuyi  ^ait} — whicli  may 
be  corrupt,  as  two  MSS.,  followed  by  Paley,  Matthiae  and  others, 
read  livrvya,  and  yet  may  stand  with  the  other  instances  as  an 
example  of  Euripides'  exaggerated  poetical  style — ,  Helen  1135 
ve(j)e\av  (i.  e.  Helen)  eVl  vavaXv  aywv — here  clearly  a  case  of  the  dat. 
as  vehicle.     The  only  two  examples  in  prose  are :  Xen.  An.  II 

4,  28  01  ^np^npoi  dirjyop  eVi  (Txe8iaif  bicjideplvais  lipTOvs,  rvpovs  kt\.  and 
Thuc.  IV  67,  3  dKUTiou  dfj.cp'rjpiKov  cos  \rjaTai,  eK  ttoWov  TedepanevKores  rfjv 
avoi^iv  TOiV  TTvXav,  eld>6eaav  eVt  dp-d^rj,  nf.idovTe.s  top  apxoPTu,  Sta  rrjs  Tu(f)pov 
{Jcge  Kara  ti)p  Td<ppop)  KuraKopi^eip  t?]s  pvktos  eVl  rrjp  ddXaaaap  Kai  tKirXflv. 

The  fact  that  these  authors  write  exceptional  Attic  would  perhaps 
for  many  be  sufficient  explanation  of  this  syntax.  But  the  in- 
stances are  worth  attention.  Xenophon's  point  was,  not  merely 
that  the  barbarians  got  food  across  the  river,  but  that  they  used  a 
novel  mode  of  conveyance,  hence  (besides  8t(})6fpipais)  the  dat.  of 
instrument,  to  which  fVi  is  almost  adverbial.  The  Thucydidean 
passage  is  still  more  instructive.  The  long  periodic  sentence, 
with  its  circumstantial  detail,  would  almost  compel  the  use  of  the 
dat.  eVt  dpd^Tjs  preceding  the  verb  at  such  a  distance  would  be 
flat.  Thucydides  may  have  lived  long  away  from  Athens,  may 
have  been  perverse  in  style,  used  archaic  spelling,  poetic  words 
and  harsh  hiatus,  but  here  surely  he  wrote  as  any  cultured  Athe- 
nian would  write,  sensitive  to  thought-accent. 


48 

It  is  clear  therefore  that  this  particular  habit  of  the  language, 
the  expression  of  the  vehicle  by  the  gen.,  was  very  strictl}'^ 
observed,  there  being  but  two  exceptions  in  prose  and  three  (or 
four)  in  Eurip.,  all  five  being  easily  accounted  for  by  the  fact 
that  the  object  was  something  more  than  a  vehicle  in  the  picture 
which  the  author  was  presenting. 

Thus  much,  by  way  of  instances,  for  the  phraseology  and 
habits  of  the  language.  We  now  turn  to  the  lists  to  apply  the 
distinction  maintained.  But  as  it  will  be  impossible  within  the 
limits  of  this  essay  to  examine  all  the  examples,  let  us  first  look 
at  those  of  single  instance — the  olavoi  of  the  language — in  the 
hope  that  here  too  their  solitariness  (according  to  the  ancient 
derivation  of  the  word)  may  prove  prophetic.  We  shall  begin 
at  the  end  of  the  lists,  as  Attic  Greek  is  the  special  object  of  the 
search. 

1)  rparrfCcoP  (=  banks'). — Plat.  Apol.  17  C  Xo'yoi)  hi  hvTcefi  eta)6a 
\ey€iv  Koi  ev  dyopa    fVt  Ta>i'   Tpane^av,  iva   vfiwv  ttoXXoI  dKTjKoacri,  Koi  aXXo6i, 

a  solitary  instance  of  eVi  TpairtC^v  in  the  sense  of  banks,  for  not 
only  Lys.,  Isoc.  and  Dem.  use  the  dat.,  but  also  Plato  himself, 

Hipp.  Min.  368  d  ws  eya  TTore  aov  tJkovov  /xeyaXavxovfievov,  TToXXfjv  aocjiiap 
Koi   ^i)X(ort]v   aavTov   die^iopros  ev   dyopa   fVt  rat?  rpane^ais  — .      And   yet 

the  difference  is  clear.  The  former  passage  is  colloquial,  to  be 
sure,  and  circumstantial,  yet  melting  into  one  thought,  uncon- 
scious, making  no  point  of  the  locality.  The  Hippias  passage, 
on  the  contrary,  is  sarcastic,  there  are  pauses  between  the  clauses, 
each  word  tells,  and  a  slight  emphasis  on  the  locality  is  not  with- 
out significance  in  the  case  of  the  money-making  sophist.  In 
Lys.,  Isoc.  and  Dem.  the  dat.  is  of  course  in  place,  as  in  all  busi- 
ness transactions  dates  and  places  must  be  carefully  designated. 

2)  dX\j]Xa)v. — Plat.    Theaet.    195    ^    ^^^    ^^    irpos    ndcn     TovTois    eV 

dXXr)Xu>v  (TVfjiTrenTcoKOTa  §  vno  <TT€vox<opias.  Klsewhere  always  fV'  dXX^- 
Xois,  as  would  be  expected,  the  very  purpose  of  the  word  being 
to  evoke  two  objects,  and  in  the  phrase  eV'  dXXrjXois  to  set  one 
upon  the  other.  But  just  here  it  is  not  Plato's  purpose  to  call  up 
two  objects,  but  their  viixture.  The  things  are  iypa,  the  context 
tells  us,  and  they  have  melted.  tV'  dXXiqXois  would  be  positively 
wrong. 

3)  t(r6p,ov. — Thuc.  I  13,  5  oiKovvres  yap  rfjv  noXiv  ol  Kopivdioi  eVi  rov 
lo'd/.tov  del  8t)  TTore  ep-rropiov  ei^ov  — .  ihuc.  I  56,  2  vnoTOTTTjcravTes  ttjv 
'4x6pav  avrav  (SC.  twv  Kopivdiav)  oi  Adrjualoi  TLoTiSaiaTas,  ol  olKovaiv  enl  tc3 
lo'dpa  Trjs  IlaXXr]i/r}s,  KopivBicov  dnoiKovs,  eavTcov  8e  ^vfi/JLaxovs   (f)6pov   vnore- 


49 

Xe'is,  fKtXevov  — .  These  passages  Kuemmell  cites  as  proof  of  the 
indifference  of  the  cases.  To  me  no  two  passages  could  better 
prove  the  difference.  In  13,  5  the  thought-accent  lies  on  del  8^ 
nore  ifxnopiov  elxov,  as  is  shown  by  what  follows,  while  the  parti- 
cipial clause  is  wholly  subordinate.  In  56,  2  the  Potidaeans, 
their  locality,  origin,  political  status,  are  circumstantially  pre- 
sented, i(Tdfia>  has  a  gen.  with  it,  all  points  are  itemized.  In  our 
own  language  we  draw  hundreds  of  just  such  distinctions, 
unaware  of  their  existence  until  some  unlucky  foreigner  fails  to 
observe  them. 

4)  avxfvav. — The  next  case  of  single  instance  is  Aesch.  Pers. 
191,  where  Atossa  is  relating  her  dream.  Xerxes  yokes  the  two 
women 

apfiaaiv  8    vno 
^(vyvvaiv  aiiTo)  koi  XeTradi'    eV    avxtvav  |  ridrjai. 

Would  not  the  ivapyua  of  the  dream  be  better  served  here  by  the 
dat.  ?  Perhaps  so ;  only  there  would  then  be  too  much  (vapyua. 
The  women  already  fill  the  picture,  with  Xerxes,  the  yoking  and 
the  collar.  Mention  of  the  part  of  the  body  is  incidental,  em- 
phasis upon  it  would  be  ludicrous,  evoking  the  question  :  Where 
else,  pray,  if  not  on  the  neck  ? 

5)  Kprivdooi>. — Hes.  Op.  757-8 

/xjjSe  TTOT    iv  npo^pj)  ttoto/xcov  oKabe  Trpopfovrav, 
fjLT]8    eVi  KpvjvcKav  ovpeiv. 

Here  eVl  KpTjvdcov  must  mean  hnmediately  over,  just  as  occasionally 
eVi  TTOTOfjiov,  eVt  daXdaarjs  are  uscd,  for  which  see  p.  53. 

6)  nrjyai. — X  1 53  of  the  fountains 

evda  8    eV    ai/rdcov  TrXv^oi  evptes  eyyvs  eacriv. 

The  fountains  had  been  already  described.  The  nXwoi  are  now 
taken  up,  the  fountains  serving  as  a  mere  point  of  reference. 
We  too,  we  accent  ^near  them,'  not  'near  ihem.^  Compare  this 
with  the  very  different  effect  of  the  datives  in  the  Catalogue, 
where  the  homes  of  the  various  contingents  are  most  carefully 

set    forth,  e,  g.  B  523  ol  T€   h'CKa\.ov   fXOi>,  nrjyfjs   ewi    Kr]<p^a■o'lo.      So    tOO 

the  careful  dat.  in  locating  the  palace  of  the  great  king,  Xen.  An. 

I  2,  8  €P  KcXaivais   epv/iva    eVl    rais   irrjyms    tov   MapaCov    noTanov   iino  rr/ 

aKponoXet,  and  in  marking  the  place  of  the  Kpi]VT}  fjSeos  CSaroi  kqI 


50 

acf)6ovos  peovaa  in    avrt)  tt,  daXaaarj  vno  ttj  iiriKpaTfia  tov   x^P^ov  (An.  VI 

4.  4)-_ 

This  completes  the  list  of  words  which  depart  in  only  one 
instance  from  the  habits  of  the  language.  Before  proceeding  to 
those  of  greater  variation,  a  second  habit  of  the  language  may 
here  be  stated  once  for  all,  to  which  the  last  example  from 
Homer,  fV'  avrdcoy,  has  led  us,  viz.  the  unemphatic  pronoun  avrov 
decidedly  prefers  the  unemphatic  gen.  case,  there  being  in  post- 
Homeric  Greek  sixteen  instances  of  eV'  avrov  to  five  of  «V'  alr^,  or, 
if  cases  of  superposition  alone  be  reckoned,^  to  only  one  fV'  aira. 
This  solitary  instance  of  avr<f  to  denote  superposition  (Xen.  Cyr. 
VI  I,  54)  is  worth  inspection.     Cyrus  builds  a  portable  tower  and 

stations  men  upon  it  kuI  no\v  paov  rjye  TO.  OKTU)  C^v-yrj  top  nvpyov  Kai  tovs 

fV'  avra  avSpas  ^  ktX.  The  graphic  en'  avT<^  is  not  '  upoH  it,'  but 
'perched  on  top  of  it,' men  and  tower,  two  objects.  The  rule, 
however,  requires  the  gen.,  as  the  figures  16  to  i  certainly  show, 
although  the  unusual  nature  of  the  event  would  at  times  cause  us 

to  expect  the  dat.  So,  e.  g.  Hd.  6,  129  6  '\nnoKKe'ihr]i  .  .  .  e'/ceXeuo-e 
01  Tiva   rpdne^av  eaevtiKai,  €(reK6ov(Tr]s   fie  ttJs  rpane^rjs   npSara  fxev  en    avrrjs 

mpx^nmiTo  AaKcoviKo.  axw"^^'-^'  ^^^  altogether  too  Strong  would  be  in 
English  too:  "he  ordered  a  table  to  be  brought  and  when 
brought  .danced  upon  it  {avTiiJ. 

Th's  habit  of  avrov  (wholly  in  accord  with  the  non-emphatic 
character  of  the  gen.  as  here  claimed)  effectually  dispels  Kuem- 
mell's  difficulty  in  distinguishing  Thuc.  IV  100,  4  c^Xo^a  enoUt 

ficyaXrjv  Ka\  tjyj/e  rov  reixovs,  ujcrre  iirfbe'va  en  avrov  en  nelvai  from  VIII 
69,  I    ^crav     Adrjpaioi   ndvres   aei,  oi   p.ev   en\   relx^i,  ol   6    ev  rd^ei,  .  .  .  e(f)' 

ottXois,  on  which  he  says  in  despair  "ne  minime  quidem  interesse 
sentio." 

The  same  habit  would  also  seem  to  establish  a  seventeenth 
instance  of  the  gen,,  viz.  eV  avr^s  (sc.  yfjs),  Plat.  Phaed.  iii  a,  as 
Bekker,  Stallbaum,  Wagner,  Wohlrab  have,  rather  than  en  alr^ 
as  the  Bodl.  MSS.,  Hermann,  and  Schanz  read.  The  reference  to 
the  preceding  yfj  is  a  wholly  unemphatic  one. 

Returning  to  the  lists  we  next  take  up 

7)  yovdrav. — There  are  only  two  instances  of  en\  yovdrav.  [Aes- 
chin.]  Epist.  4,  3  describing  the  statue  of  Pindar  np6  rrjs  /SatrtXei'ov 

aroas,  Kadfjuevo?    ivBufiari    kqI   Xvpa   6   Tlivdnpos,  didSijiia   ex^^v   Ka\   enl   ra>v 

^  Thuc.  uses  hn'  avrC)  twice,  Herod,  once,  of  proxim.  to  a  river,  Herod. 
£7r'  avTi)  once  of  proxim.  to  an  island. 


51 

yovdrav  avet\tyfj.evov  ^i^Xlov.  Xen.  Conv.  g,  4  tnei  yt  fjLrjv  Kart'idfi/  avrfiv 
(^SC,    ApidSvTip)  6  Ai6vv<Tos,  f'nixopfva-as  (liOirep  tw  ei  ris  (fiiXiKwraTa  fKadt'^tro 

eVi  t5>v  yovuTav.  In  the  former  case  Pindar  has  two  things,  a 
wreath  and  an  open  book,  the  place  of  the  book  being  desig- 
nated incidentally,  but  furnishing  no  third  item  in  Pindar's  make- 
up. Dionysus  in  the  Xenophon  passage  dances  up  to  Ariadne 
and  seats  himself  upon  her  lap — not  a  remote  or  surprising  place 
for  the  lover,  as  the  dat.  would  have  represented  it.  In  the 
instances  of  eVt  yovacn.  either  the  verbs  more  naturally  take  a  dat., 
as  Karidr]K€v  (Lysias),  dfivm,  KaOiaa-as  (Hm.),  Ka6i(opivr]  (Ar.  Tliesm. 
1 182 — where  it  is  not  for  love,  however,  as  with  Dionysus  and 
Ariadne),  or  there  is  pathos  and  the  etching  is  deep.  X  500 
Andromache   lamenting    Hector   from    the   walls  and  telling  of 

Astyanax,  6s  Trp\v  p^v  ioZ  enl  yovvacrt  narpos  \  pveXov  olov  ebicrKf.  Xen. 
Cyr.  VII  3>  5  '''^^  ^^  ywaiKa  Xf'yovcrii'  cos  KudtjTai  x^M"'  KfKoapijKvla  otr 
fi\€  TOP  avbpa  (her  slam  husband),  Tj)f  Kf(f>aXf]v  atroi  f)(ovija  fTTi  To'ls 
yovaai. 

8)  Qvpeoav,  -wv. — In  placc  of  fVi  6vpais,  the  regular  phrase  in 
frequent  use  from  Hm.  down,  em  dvpiwv  (-wv)  occurs  three  times : 
Hdt.  3,  120.  5,  92  y.  Lycurg.  contra  Leocr.  40.  I  confess  here 
to  seeing  no  reason  whatever  for  the  departure  from  usage.  In 
the  Herodotean  passages  one  is  almost  led  to  suspect  corruption 
of  the  text,  some  one  of  Herodotus'  late  admirers  substituting  by 
slip  the  phrase  of  his  own  times.  For  that  the  use  of  eVi  c.  gen. 
to  denote  proximity  became  more  common — though  never  exten- 
sive— in  later  times  is  seen  by  reference  to  Polybius  (see  Krebs, 
Die  Praepos.  bei  Polyb.,  1882)  and  to  the  New  Testament.  Ly- 
curgus'  break  with  the  habitual  phrase  is  the  more  possible,  or 
rather  probable,  as  already  in  his  time  iitl  c.  gen.  had  lost  its 
earlier  stability  of  signification  and  showed  various  metaphoric 
uses  and  connections  with  abstracts.  Why  not,  therefore,  also 
in  connection  with  concretes  show  development  ?  Besides,  in  his 
desire  to  increase  the  tensity  of  his  expression  (already  through- 
out quite  tense  enough),  he  may  have  seized  on  the  less  emphatic 
gen.  because  unusual,  and  by  this  contravention  of  the  usual 
attained  the  emphasis  aimed  at.'     Or  can  it  literally  mean  {6pav 

'This  method  of  obtaining  an  effect  (viz.  by  reversal  of  the  natural 
means)  may  be  seen  in  any  art  which  has  reached  its  full  growth.  In 
modern  music,  for  example,  love  scenes  and  the  aiidaute  movement  of  the 
symphony  are  often  given  fortissimo,  the  finale  on  the  contrary  pianissivto. 


52 
8    ^v  eVi  fJLfV  Twv   6vpa>v   yvvaiKai'  (Xfv6fpas   7r€pi(f)6^ovs   KaTenTr])(yias)  that 

the  timid  women  pressed  cowering  upon  the  doors  ? 

9)  Ke(f)a\r].—  ln  Plato's  Sympos.  212  e  (too  long  for  quotation) 
stands  first  a  description  of  Alcibiades  standing  at  the  door  raiplas 
exofTu  en\  Ttjs  Kei^akrjs  navv  noWds,  and  within  the  same  paragraph 

he   says    vi/v   8e   tJk(o   em  t^  Ke(f)a\^   €X<ov   ray   raiviaS'      "  Absolutely  HO 

difference,"  say  some.  And  yet  see  how  delicately  and  perfectly 
Jowett  has  given  the  difference.  Alcibiades  "appears  at  the  door 
.  .  .  his  head  flowing  with  ribands,"  and  then  says  "  I  am  here 
to-day  carrying  on  my  head  these  ribands."  The  change  in  the 
order  of  Greek  words  points  to  just  this  difference  in  thought- 
accent,  raivias  claiming  attention  in  the  first,  eVl  rlj  KecpaXjj  in  the 
second  passage,  as  Alcibiades  proves  by  his  next  clause,  ha  Imo 

T^s    f^TJ!    K€(f)a\^s    TTjv    rov    (rocpcoTaTov    Koi    KoXXiVrou    KecpaXtjv    dvadrjcra). 

Compare  again  the  change  of  cases  and  the  change  of  position, 
eflfecting  the  same  change  of  thought-accent  as  here,  in  Rep. 

600  a  KOI  eVt  ravTT]  rrj  crocpiq  ovtco  a-cj)68pa  (piKovvrai,  ware  povov  ovk.  ini 
rnls  K«pa\ais  nepKpepovaiv  avrovs  ol  eraipoi  and  617  ^  Moipas,  \fv\fipo- 
fevaas,  OTtppara  eVt  raiv  Kf(pa\ci)P  i)(ovaas. 

In  Hdt.  5i  12  cTKfvdaafTfs  rfjv  d8(\(f>er]v  los  el^ov  apicTTa,  iir  v8a>p 
enepnov  ayyos  eVt  tt/  Ke(f)a\Tj   '4)(ovaav  Koi  sk  tov  ^pa)(iovos  lttttov  (TjekKovdav 

Koi  Kkadovaav  \ivov,  while  in  the  last  sentence  of  the  same  chapter 

the  same  woman  appears  ^epovo-a  to  vbap  eVt  r^?  KecjyaX^s  koI  eVe'XKOvo-a 
e'/c  TOV  ^paxiovos  tov  imrov  /cat  crrptcfiovcra  top  arpaKTOv.      "  Here   again  nO 

difference,"  say  some.  "  The  gen.  and  dat.  are  as  undistinguish- 
able  here  in  function  as  in  the  dual  they  are  in  form."  But  the 
true  explanation  is  this :  Herodotus  having  once  painted  the 
picture  in  detail,  has  no  further  need  of  the  itemizing  dat.  Like 
a  good  artist,  he  chooses  for  the  repetition  the  more  summary 
and  incidental  gen.,  at  the  same  time  shifting  it,  as  Plato  did,  into 
the  less  prominent  position  after  the  verb.^  In  his  minutely- 
detailed  account  of  the  dress  of  the  various  tribes  under  Xerxes, 
Herodotus  invariably  uses,  when  describing  their  head-gear,  eVt 
T^ai  Kf(f)a\TJ(Tt,  as  might  be  expected  (VII  70,  72,  74,  75,  76,  79,  84), 
the  dat.  preceding  the  verb  in  every  instance  but  once — one  other 

^  This  same  lightening  of  the  touch  on  repetition  is  seen  in  Eur.  Hec, 
where  in  v.  698  the  slave-woman  tells  of  the  dead  Polydorus  err'  anTalq  vtv 
Kvpu  6a7iaaaiaig  full  of  the  horror  of  the  scene,  while  in  v.  778  the  grim 
Hecuba,  still  self-restrained  before  Agamemnon,  responds  to  his  question 
as  to  the  finder  f/6',  kvrvxovaa  Tvovriag  aKTfjg  ekl.  See  also  Herod.  Ill  28  k. 
pev  T(I>  pET^KCj) .  .  .  e,  de  tov  vutov. 


53 

instance  lacking^  its  verb.  Xenophon  also  uses  the  dat.  in  describ- 
ing head-gear  (An.  V  4,  13.  VII  4,  4);  further,  in  an  instructive 
instance  of  the  attributive  position,  where  the  attributes  are  them- 
selves contrasted,  and  do  not,  as  is  usually  the  case,  stand  sub- 
ordinate and  in  the  gen.,  viz.  An.  II  5,  23  rfiv  fih  yap  fVi  rfi  K((pa\f/ 

Tidpav  ^aaiKei  iJ.6v<o  f^tarip  upOfjv  ex^'-"'  ''7''  ^*  f""'  ^.V  Kapdia  tcrcos  tiv  vficov 
Trapovrav  Koi  erepos  evTrera)!  e;(ot. 

lo)  noraiJLov,  OuKarra-r^s. — -Proximity  to  water  is  regularly  expressed 
by  eVi  c.  dat.     But  Xenophon  three  times,  and  Demosthenes  once, 

has  fTTt  norapov,  HerodotUS  once  in\  d<i\ii(T(rr]s  and  once  tV'  airoi  (^sc. 

Boa-TTopov).  The  distinction  is  clear.  The  gen.  presents  the  object 
as  immediately  over  the  water,  its  image  reflected  in  and  one  with 
it ;  the  dat.  denotes  proximity  merely,  but  the  water  remains  a 
distinct  object.     In  Xenophon's  first  passage  fVl  iroTapov  is  literally 

upon,  An.  II  5,   18   TTOTapolj   ecfi'  0)1/   e^eartu   r^piv  rapuveadai   ojrocrois    tiv 

vpmv  ^ovXapeda  pdx^adai  (J.  6.  over  the  fords  of  the  rivers).     So  too 

in  the  second.  An.  IV  3,  28  t'Swi/  Se  airovs  8ia^alvouTay  Sffo^ii'  iT(py\ras 
ayytkov    KeXevei    avrov    peivai    eirl   tov    iroTapov  pfj   dia^dvres — they   were 

therefore  actually  in  or  on  the  river,  not  somewhere  in  the  neigh- 
borhood, as  eVi  Tw  TTorapci  might  mean.  His  third  gen..  Hell.  VII 
4,  29  in\  8e  TOV  KXaSaou  noTapov  napfTii^avTo  niust  mean,  as  in  Hesiod's 
eVi  Kprjvdcov,  '  on  the  Very  brink  of,'  as  the  seat  of  the  Olympian 
games  could  have  offered  only  close  quarters  for  a  battle.     Dem. 

18,  216    8is   re    (TvpTTapaTu^dpevoi    ras    rrparns,  ttjv    t    f'nl   Trorapov    Ka\    Tt]v 

xeipepivrjv  is  of  doubtful  historical  reference  and  must  be  passed 
over  or  else  taken  as  an  instance  of  the  crumbling  of  Greek  idiom 
already  alluded  to.  Of  the  two  Herodotean  passages,  one  shows 
the  pronoun  of  reference  and  is  properly  in  the  gen.  (see  above, 

p.  50)>  6(f}crdpfvos  bi  Kol   TOV   Boanopov   (TTrjXas   earrjaf   8vo  en    avToii   Xidov 

Xeviiov  (IV  87),  while  in  the  other  (III  5)  «V6  TavTr]s  (sc.  KaSCnos 

TToXtos)  TO.  ipnopia  ra  enl  daKdacrris  pexP*'    ^li'^'o-ov  noXios  fWt  tov  'Apa^lov, 

Herodotus  is  mapping  out  the  land  and  uses  the  sea  as  an  adjec- 
tive (the  sea-ports).  The  gen.,  consequently,  is  the  only  proper 
case. 

We  turn  next  to  those  cases  in  Aristophanes  which  to  Sobo- 
lewski  prove  the  indifference  of  gen.  and  dat.  He  compares 
Eq.  752  ff. 

6  yap  yipu)V 
o'lKoi  pei>  uvdpcov  fan  df^iutTarot, 
OTav  8    eVt  Tovrrjai  KadfJTai  Trjs  ntTpas, 
Kixfivev  ktX 


54 

with  Eq.  783  o-e  yap  .... 

fVt  Tn7<Ti  TTtV/jaif  ov  ippovTi^d  (TK:\T]pS>s  (Te  Kadrjfievov  ovtcos 
ovx  (oanfp  e'yw  pa'^afj.fvos  <Toi  tovtI  (f)epa).   dX\    inavaipu) 
Kara  Kadi^ov  pa\aKci>s  ktX. 

From  all  that  has  been  said,  the  distinction  here  must  strike 
every  one.  In  the  first  passage  there  is  a  contrast  of  Demos  at 
home  with  Demos  at  the  pnyx.  The  places  are  used  attributively 
(//^w  Demos  and  ikai  Demos),  and  in  themselves  are  of  no 
importance.  But  in  the  second  passage  how  pathetic  are  those 
hard  rocks — real  rocks  that  hurt  you  when  you  sit  upon  them, 
not  the  pnyx  rock  of  the  other  occasion  where  men  voted  and 
clamored.  *'  I  have  bought  a  cushion  which  I  made  for  you. 
Now  you  can  sit  softly  on  those  hard  rocks."  Evidently  the 
sausage-seller  makes  the  Trerpai  all-prominent.  The  difference 
between  the  two  passages  so  far  from  being  7n/,  is  enormous. 
Sobolewski  again  holds  up  Vesp.  1040  TjniaXoi  kqi  vrvpeTol) 

01  Tovs  TTanpas  t  Tjy)(ov  vvKrcop  Kai  rovs  Tramrovs  airenviyov, 
KaroKKivopevoi  r  eTTi  rais  Koirais  erri  roiaiv  anpaypocnv  vpa>v 
avTapocrias  Koi  Trpo<jKkT](r€i?  Koi  paprvpias  (rvveKoWaiv  ktX. 

in  comparison  with  Lys.  575  ^p^'^'ov  ptv  ^XP^^>  &anep  ttokop  iv  ^aXavfla 

eKTrkvvavTas  Tr)v  olcrwaTtjv,  eK  Tr]s  noXecos  enl  kXivtjs 
eKpa^di^eiP  tovs  poxdrjpuvs  ktX. 

and  Lys.  732 

aXX    rj^oi  Taxeois  vtj  to)  dea,- 
ocrov  8ian€Tdaa<T    eVi  rrjs  kXiptjs  povov. 

But  the  difference  here  is  no  less  than  before.  Note  the  personi- 
fication and  high  imagery  of  the  first  passage — the  murderous 
'HTTt'aXoi  and  Uvperol  Strangling  old  men  and  scheming  in  the  night- 
watches — a  passage  direct  from  Les  Miserables.  Whereas  in 
Lys.  575  what  object  does  eVi  kXiVj??  serve  ?  Merely  to  make  plain 
the  metaphor,  nothing  more.  As  for  Lys.  732,  the  woman  does 
well  not  to  emphasize  the  kxIvt]  by  using  the  dat.     See  the  schol. : 

diaTreracracra  to.  epia,  ds  to  KaKeptpoTov  8e  alviTTeTai. 

Sobolewski  does  not  study  the  context.  He  fails  to  see  that 
syntax  can  no  more  be  understood  bit  by  bit  than  a  mosaic.  He 
has  not  grasped  the  fact  that  syntax  is,  if  not  the  man,  at  all 

^  Hamaker  reads  ev. 


55 

events,  the  occasion.  Lucian  writing  did  fairly  well  as  an  Atti- 
cist,  but  Lucian  embarrassed  was  shocked  to  find  what  errors  he 
was  capable  of.  Carlyle  when  in  a  passion  went  back  to  his 
mother-Scotch.  The  nerves  of  an  organized  sentence  can  be 
slack  or  tense  just  as  the  muscles  of  the  human  body.  Its  tone  is 
discovered  by  a  careful  diagnosis  of  just  such  symptoms  as  (iri 
TLPos,  eVi  Ttvi.  Ignoring  such  symptoms,  we  run  the  risk  of  the 
Greek  becoming  truly  a  dead  language  for  us. 

Without  devoting  further  space  to  particular  instances,  it  may 
be  well  to  inquire  what  relation  this  distinction  bears  to  the  devel- 
oped uses  of  tnl  c.  gen.  and  f'nl  c.  dat.  Can  they  be  deduced 
from  it  and  so  bear  witness  to  it,  or  not  ?  On  even  a  cursory 
glance  it  will  be  seen  that  they  do.  Taking  the  meanings  at  ran- 
dom, first,  of  eVi  c.  dat. :  to  eat  (drink)  one  thing  with  another 
(eVi  rii>()  presents  the  image  of  two  objects,  not  one,  and  the  gen. 
is  impossible  (see  p.  59).  So  in  the  official  phrases  (p.  60) 
where  the  wagons,  camels,  machines,  ships  claim  our  thought 
more  than  the  inan  in  charge  of  them,  while  the  official  gen.  on 
the  contrary  sinks  these  things  in  the  personality  of  the  officer, 
ovrri  Tov  opvyfiaros,  for  example,  was  perhaps  as  concrete  an  indi- 
viduality as  the  modern  Beefeater.  So  the  various  actions  and 
occasions  at  which  one  may  be  present  (eV'  aySxri,  a-vuSoXaiots , 
diadrjKT],    deiTTva,   etc.)     So,   temporally,    to   do    one    thing   after 

another,  and  in  the  phrases   enl   tovtco,  eVt   rw   rptVa)  a-rjiitiM,    cf)6vos   enl 

(jiQvcp,  ('ixdos  eV  axdd,  etc.     So  to  post  One  next  to  another  rarreij/ 

(^KaTaa-Tfjo-ai)  riva  inl  Tivi,  tO  foUow  on  another  (TTeadai  eVi  Tin,  the 
rearguard  ol  enl  nacn.  So  Eur.  Ale.  373  nrj  yafxeiv  aW-qv  nua  yvvalK 
e'0'  rj^lv.      So   the    hostile    tnl    m    ixrjxafaadai    \TiKTaivt(y6au,    avvofivvvai, 

TaTTdv,  fidx^crdai)  irri  rivi.  So  the  eVi  of  price,  calling  up  two  objects 
and  their  exchange,  while  the  gen.  subordinates  the  price  to  the 
thing  purchased.  So  the  further  extension  of  tni  to  denote  con- 
dition, cause,  purpose.  Throughout  the  whole  list  two  objects 
are  presented. 

em  c.  gen.  on  the  contrary  becomes  phraseological,  fuses,  and 
presents  a  composite,  whose  elements  are  not  easy  to  disengage, 
by  themselves  not  making  obvious  sense.  From  the  time  of 
Homer's  evx^ade  .  .  .  aiyjj  i<p'  vfiflav  (H  195)  '  pray  in  silence  to 
yourselves,'  there  is  something  subjective  about  it,  the  image 
returning  to  itself,  no  second  object  allowed  to  intrude.'     So  in 

^See  Kriiger's  Xen.  An.  V  4,  34  for  the  difference  between  yeMi>  e^' 
eavTov  and  yeZ-av  etp'  eavrc^. 


56 

the  military  phrases  eVl  cjidXayyos   (^Ktpas,  ivds,  rpiaKOvra,  oXi'ycoj/)  ayeiv, 

TUTTfiv,  yiyveadni,  etc.  So  even  in  the  eVi  of  direction  (eVt  ^apov 
nXelv),  where  the  gen.  is  the  "  characteristic  of  the  motion  "  and 
goes  as  immediately  with  its  verb  as  the  word  wesi  in  our  phrase 
'  to  go  west."  In  all  cases  the  gen.  presents  an  object  which 
melts  at  once  into  the  chief  object  of  the  thought  or  serves  as  a 
mark  by  which  it  may  be  recognized.  The  developed  uses  there- 
fore of  eVt  c.  gen.  and  eV/  c.  dat.  favor  the  distinction  maintained. 

A  second  support  may  be  found  in  the  behavior  of  the  sister 
preposition  vn6.  Why  does  it  prefer  the  dat.  in  its  local  sense  ? 
(That  it  does  so  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  Appendix  C.) 
Evidently  for  this  reason.  If  one  thing  be  upoti  another,  we  see 
it  without  effort,  there  is  nothing  to  call  forth  remark,  and,  on 
ordinary  occasions,  we  would  use  the  gen.  eVt  nvos.  But  the  being 
under  a  thing  does  not  strike  us  as  a  natural  (normal)  position. 
Things  under  other  things  are  apt  to  be  hidden  and  to  be  passed 
over,  as  proved  by  eVi  1455  times  against  vno  345  times  (not  in- 
cluding Plato  entire  or  the  lyric  fragments).  But  if  we  do  see 
things  under  other  things,  their  situation  cannot  but  impress  us. 
And  what  case  can  better  draw  attention  to  locality  than  the 
dative?     Hence  v-no-nvi,  just  as  tVi  nvi,  to  emphasize  the  place. 

A  third  point  in  favor  of  the  theory  that  the  distinction  between 
the  gen,  and  dat.  with  eVi  must  be  based  in  imagery  and  not  in 
logic  is  the  remarkable  difference  of  construction  shown  by  cer- 
tain verbs,  e.  g.  by  ^dXXeiv  and  Uvai,  The  latter  prefers  the  gen., 
^aXXe^l'  and  eVi^aXXeij/  the  dat.  or  accus.,  never  perhaps  in  all 
classic  Greek  taking  the  gen.     They  are  not  found  with  the  gen. 

^  Definition  of  the  cases  may  as  well  be  abandoned.  If  the  nearest  defi- 
nition of  the  accus.  is  :  '•  eine  Erganzung  oder  nahere  Bestimmung  des 
Verbalbegriffs,"  then  countless  genitives  are  accusatives.  For,  as  said 
above,  the  dispute  as  to  whether  it  is  the  verbal  element  in  a  noun  or  the 
nominal  element  in  a  verb  which  attracts  the  gen.  seems  sheer  logomachy, 
particularly  supererogatory  in  the  case  of  the  Greeks,  who  cudgelled  their 
brains  many  a  century  before  discovering  (or  fancying  they  had  discovered) 
the  difference  between  a  noun  and  a  verb.  Query:  did  the  Greeks  lack  dis- 
cernment here  or  is  it  we,  warped  by  early  training  into  seeing  distinctions 
where  none  exist?  Yet  at  last  we  may  be  floating  back  to  the  definition- 
less  open  sea  of  the  Greeks.  See  Professor  Gildersleeve,_/^/?«j  Hopkins 
U7i.  Circulars  for  1883,  p.  67  :  "The  adjec.  is  a  ptc.  at  rest,  the  ptc.  is  an 
adjec.  in  motion.  A  similar  difference  is  seen  between  the  abstract  noun 
and  the  infinitive."  But  if  rest  and  motion  are  relative,  then  verb  and 
noun  are  one. 


57 

in  Homer/  Hesiod,  Pindar,"  Aeschylus,  Sophocles,  Aristophanes 
Herodotus,  Thucydides,  Xenophon,  Plato,^  or  Theocritus.  All 
editors  are  dissatisfied  with  Sappho  102  rjp'  tn  irapdevlas  e'nii3u\\ofiai, 
and  Eur.  Orest.  51  has  been  rejected  as  an  interpolation,  while 
yovmTCiv  in  Eur.  Suppl.  272  goes  of  course  with  dprlacTov,  and  (o-xiipa^ 
in  Cycl.  384  is  accus.,  thus  leaving  as  the  solitary  example  in 
classic  Greek*  of  (SaXXetj/  with  the  gen.  Eur.  Suppl.  286  ri  KXaitLs 
XeVr'  eV'  onfidrcov  (jidpt]  \  ^aXovaa  tS>v  (tS)v  ',  ^  Why  this  difference  of 
construction  in  verbs  of  the  same  signification?  Clearly  because 
of  the  mental  image  evoked  by  them.  With  jSuWa  our  eyes 
follow  the  missile  to  its  goal,  while  levai.  simply  lets  it  fly."  teVai 
therefore  chooses  the  subjective  case,  /SdXXw  the  objective.  But  if 
verbs  elect  their  construction  by  reference  to  the  imagery  of  the 
cases,  why  may  not  also  prepositions  ? 

It  would  be  an  additional  acceptable  support  to  the  theory  if 
the  use  of  modifiers  and  of  the  definite  article  gave  evidence  for 
it.  For  on  first  thought  we  might  expect  that  the  case  which 
tended  to  phraseological  formations  would  seldom  show  modifi- 
cation, or,  if  any,  that  it  too  would  be  of  the  stereotyped  sort; 
also  that  the  article  would  be  more  frequently  lacking  than  with 
the  livelier  dative.  Now,  though  the  figures  do  not  run  counter 
to  this  surmise,  yet  the  difference  between  the  number  of  modified 
genitives  and  modified  datives  is  not  great  (28  per  cent,  of  the 
genitives  to  2fi per  cent,  of  the  datives).  And  on  second  thought 
we  could  not  expect  it  to  be  otherwise;  for  stereotyped  phrases 
and  brevity  of  phrase  are  just  as  necessary  when  speaking  of  two 

1 Z  68  tvfipwy  £7r/^aAAo//£vof  is  the  nearest  approach,  but  the  verb  is  here 
in  the  middle  voice,  the  thrower  is  the  viissile. 

^01.  I  58  neipaAdi  ftaldv  is  '  from  the  head.' 

'Sisyphus  [Plato]  391  a  does  indeed  show  rhv  TrAeicraiag  ^d}.7.ovrn  rov 
OKOTTov,  but  Sisyphus  is  not  Plato's. 

*The  following  examples  of  ^uA7.£tv  c.  gen.  are  quoted  in  N.  T.  lexicons  : 
jiejiArjjihov,  -rjv,  ett\  KMvTjg  Mt.  9,  2,  Mk.  7,  30  (which  hardly  count,  as  fid/./.u 
is  in  the  perfect),  idv  iivOpunoq  (id?iri  rhv  anopov  t~l  rf/q  yi/g  Mk.  4,  26. 
(ia/iovaa  yap  avrrj  to  fi'vpov  tovto  inl  rou  auuaTog  uov  Mt.  20,  12. 

*If  thegen.  be  allowed  here,  however,  to  the  introspective  and  erratic 
Euripides,  jajopof  may  be  gen.  in  Supp.  272. 

^See  Schmidt,  Synionymik  der  Griechischeti  Sprache  III,  §104,  p.  151  : 
"  jSdA/lEiv  unterscheidet  sich  so  von  ^yliTTeiv  und  livai,  dass  die  Erreichung  des 
Orts-Objekts  dabei  direkt  ins  Auge  gefasst  wird."  Page  155:  "Endlich 
ist  auch  hervorzuheben,  dass  mit  Uvac  nicht  einmal  notwendig  die  Tren- 
nung  von  dem  Subjekte  angegeben  wird.     Od.  6,  231.     II.  19,  383.  22,  316." 


58 

objects  as  when  speaking  of  one,  if  not  more  so.  For  example, 
we  speak  of  the  man  fV'  airocfiapco  (without  the  article)  briefly,  yet 
clearly  see  culprit  a?td  crime,  while  the  phrase  ovn\  rod  opvyixaros 
(with  the  article)  calls  up  but  one  image — the  hangman's.  Here, 
therefore,  there  is  no  evidence  either  for  or  against  the  distinction 
maintained. 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  principle  oirepraesentatio  here  claimed 
must,  if  true,  be  of  much  greater  extension  than  the  present  essay 
has  set  forth.  A  picturesque  use  of  the  cases  would  hardly  con- 
fine its  exhibition  to  a  connection  with  two  prepositions  (fVt  and 
ijrd).  But  certainly  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  two 
cases  to  render  such  a  distinction  improbable.  On  the  contrary 
many  points  have  been  presented  in  its  favor.^  If  repraesentatio 
has  been  found  so  potent  in  the  moods  of  indirect  discourse,  why 
not  also  in  the  cases  ?  Its  images  may  sometimes  appear  illogi- 
cal, and  logic  be  compelled  to  retire  baffled.  But  if  analogy  is 
admitted  to  have  played  many  pranks  with  logic,  why  may  not 
repraesentatio  do  so  ?  Reason  is  not  yet  dominant  in  language. 
Thanks  to  imagery,  the  sun  still  '  rises.'  Without  absolute  revolt, 
therefore,  from  logic  and  statistics,  we  may  do  well  at  times 
(especially  if  we  have  statistics  with  us)  to  go  back  to  Dionysius 
of  Halicarnassus  and  judge  the  phenomena  of  language  by  aXoyos 
ato-^T^o-tr,  or  at  any  rate  to  avoid  the  Charybdis  of  dj/at'o-^)?rof  \6yoi. 

^  Other  small  points  maybe  pointed  out,  ^.^.  that  vv.  of  action  prefer  Tspi 
c.  ace.,  vv.  of  thought  and  speech  Trept  c.  gen.  For  the  difference  between 
Jid  c.  gen.  and  ^lo.  c.  ace.  I  quote  Gildersleeve,  Introductory  Essay  to 
Pindar,  p.  98  :  "  With  the  gen.  the  passage  is  already  made,  or  as  good  as 
made.  In  Pyth.  9,  133  wapdevov  ayev  cKnevrdv  'Nofidduv  61'  b/ii'Xov,  we  may 
imagine  elbowing,  but  it  may  be  imagination."     But  it  is  more  than  that. 


59 

APPENDICES. 

A. 

Excluded  histances  of  tni. 

A  necessary  complement  to  the  lists  presented  in  this  essay  is 
a  list  of  exclusions,  the  heads  of  which  will  be  here  given.  The 
question  what  to  omit  and  what  to  include  has  been  by  no  means 
always  an  easy  one,  and  the  decision  will  often  perhaps  seem 
arbitrary.  For  while  in  this  special  inquiry  the  guiding  principle 
is  apparently  simple,  viz.  that  of  the  concreteness  of  an  object,  or, 
in  the  case  of  metaphors,  the  vividness  of  the  image  presented, 
yet  just  what  the  vivid  image  is  and  just  what  metaphor  has 
become  so  remote  as  to  be  dead  are  questions  which  can  be  cor- 
rectly answered  only  as  one  approximates  to  Greek  thought  and 
feeling.  Neither  logic  nor  the  analogies  of  our  own  language 
should  be  allowed  to  influence  the  decision.  Yet  I  think  such 
has  been  the  case  in  the  first  of  the  following  heads : 

I.  It  seems  to  be  the  common  opinion  that  in  such  phrases  as 

eadietv  enl  r«3  ctito)  oyf^ov   (Xen.  Mem.  Ill    I4»  2),  Kapbafiov  e^^"'  *^*  '''V 

aiTco  (Cyrop.  I  2,  ii),  eni  c.  dat.  is  not  purely  local  but  means  'in 
addition  to'  or  'with.'  In  deference  to  this  opinion  I  have 
omitted  such  phrases  from  the  lists.  Yet  if  our  own  phrases  had 
been  '  bread  on  meat '  and  '  butter  on  bread  '  instead  of  what  they 
are,  perhaps  the  purely  local  notion  would  have  been  more  readily 
allowed  to  the  Greek.  This  error  of  classifying  the  phenomena 
of  a  language  by  the  translations  made  from  it  into  one's  own  is 
an  old  one,  against  which  Rumpel  raised  a  warning  voice  in  his 
Casuslehre^  p.  8o.  The  following  is  a  complete  list  of  such  exclu- 
sions : 

dXi  Ar,  Ach.  835  ■na'uiv  .  .  .  fxciSBav.  .  .  .  e^'^o'"''    ^^  -'  ^7  »'■««'"«'  vfi&Jp. 

aX^tVoif    Ar.  Plut.  628    fiefxvtTTiXr]-  Mem.    Ill    14,    2    f'crdiovai    .  .  . 

fievoi.  oy^ov. 

afi^poaia    PL    Phaedr.    247    e    in  Taplxit.   Ar.  Ach.  967    \(>(fiovs  Kpa- 

nvT^  veKTap  ewnTKrev.  daive'rco.      Ar.    P  rg.    63O   yfXcora 

^uXXavTia  Ar.  Eq.  707  (f)dyoti  .  .  .  /caWfio/Ltni.       Chiondes    6    (I) 

ay,  KOTTTtTOP   (?). 

KoWvpa  Ar.  Pax  123  e^erf  .  .  .  o-^of       rplyXr]    Autiph.  26,   II   (II)  k(itkt- 
(Tt'  avrrj.  0i-fi'  yovr  en\  pia  rfjv  ovaiav. 

Xdx^iva    Aristophon    13,   8    (II)      >|,(u;ia.  Xen.  Mem.  Ill  14,  5  ox/^wv 

ttIvovitiv  (TTi  TovTOis  v8<t)p.  yfvfadai. 

aiT<o  Xen.  Cyrop.  I  2, 1 1  Kdp8ap.oy 


6o 

In  this  connection  Homer  frequently  has  the  adverbial  inl  8e 
thereupon,  therewith,  and  Blaydes  has  made  a  collection  of 
passages  on  Ar.  Plut.  1005,  where  tnea-dUiv  also  takes  the  dative. 

2.  Another  wide  use  of  cVi  c.  dat.  is  to  designate  the  things  or 
persons,  over  which  one  has  been  appointed  officer,  overseer,  or 
the  like ;  also  the  post  at  which  one  is  stationed.  Here  the  local 
meaning  does  not  suffice  or  has  altogether  disappeared.  Atten- 
tion has  been  already  called  to  some  of  the  earlier  instances,  as 
e.g-.  Homer's  eVl  /3ouo-i.  The  following  is  of  course  not  a  complete 
list : 

KaraX  ITT eip  tlvu   (fivXaKas   eVt  —  Xen.  Cyrop.  IV  5>  J-5'      f'""'   '''?  ""I'pi 

Anab.  IV  2,  I4«     eVl  rois  vno^vylois  /cat  6\fj^a(Ti.  Cyrop.  V  3,  34. 

in\  Tois  vava-'i  Hellen.  I  5)  1 1* 
alpelad ai  em  rots  Traicrt  (^e(f>TJ^ois,  reXeiois  dv8pa(n)  Cyrop.  I  2,  5- 
Tarreiv    em  TpiTjpea-i   Dem.    IJ,    20.      em  rais    ripcopiais   IsOC.    5>    1 17* 

e'm  TTJ  Koivrj  cj)v\aK^  Dem.  17,  15.     See  also  Dein.  i,  112.   Dem. 
60,  22.   Aesch.  2,  73. 
ecf)e(rTdvai  eiri  —  Isoc.  3,  48,  and  many  other  verbs. 

Also  with  the  article  6  (of)  im  rais  pr^xavals  Xen.  Cyrop.  VI  3,  27. 

em  Tn7s  KUfirjXoii   Cyrop.  VI  3,  33.      em   toIs   aXKois   dppaai   Cyrop.  VI 

3,  36,  em  ra  opvypari  Dein.  I,  62.  toIs  Trpdypatn  Dem.  8,  76.  9,  2 
ovres.      em  rots  ^evois  .  •  .  eyevero  Dem.  I,  74* 

Here  must  be  catalogued,  and  not  elsewhere,  such  instances  as 

the   following:    dXX',  el  ^ovXei,  pev    em  rw  (tt par ev pari  Xen.  Anab.  Ill 

4,  4^'  ^o'^^  (TT paTTjyovs  Koi  rovs  em  rot?  puKpois  irXoiois  Dem.  58,  55. 
naprjcrav  ai  .  .  .  vrjes  .  .  .  Koi  en  avrais  vavap^os  Uvdayopas  Xen.  Anab.  I 
4,  2.      Ki'rjpov  pev  vavap^op  en  ovra  (Aral   tovs   OTrXtras)  em   vava\v   oXiyais 

evdi's  mptvova-i  Thuc.  II  80,  2.  This  last  passage  gives  trouble  to 
Kuemmell,  but  the  fact  is  that  the  local  has  vanished  before  the 
official  usage,  and  Captain  Knemos  is  sent  with  or  z>z  command 
of  a  few  ships.  As  a  test,  let  one  try  to  satisfy  himself  with  the 
purely  local  notion,  and  he  will  see  that  the  image  presented  is 
uncalled  for  by  the  context,  and  absurd.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
the  notion  of  conveyance  had  been  intended,  the  whole  usage  of 
the  language,  where  no  emphasis  is  present,  would  have  demanded 
the  genitive.     Kuemmell  may  as  well  revert  to  the  purely  local 

notion  of  VTTo  m    ihuc.  IV  44>  4  °^  KardhriiXos  T]  pd)(T)  rjv  vno  Toii  opovs. 

Examples  of  the  official  genftive  are :  ol  em  rcov  oTrXirav  Lys.  32, 

5-      6  em  Tov  opvypaTos  Lycurg.  121.      tovs  em  rrjs  noXiTelas  e(j)e(TTr) kotos 


6i 
Dem.  19,  298.     Tovs  eVt  70)1/  TrpayiiaTmu  Dem.  1 8,  247.    Deiii.  Proem. 

30,  I.      eVt   rfov  npci^eu>p   Dcm.    Proem.   55,  3.      t6i>  (7t\  rwv  viTr]pniKU)V 

Aeschin.  2,  73.     Tovy  eVi  rovroav  firfarfwras  Herod.  4,  84  ;  etc.     For 
the  difference  between  these  and  the  dat.  see  p.  55. 

3.  A  third  more  difficult  and  indeed  impossible  line  to  draw 
was  that  which  should  separate  the  local  en-i  and  the  more  vivid 
of  the  temporal  eVi's  from  the  gradually  less  vivid  temporal  use 
which  finally  loses  all  imagery  in  e.  g.  {ju.)  eVl  tcvjoi^  (ro-de). 
Beginning,  therefore,  with  r;  120  oyx^T]  tn  oyxpi)  and  S  130  e</)'  eXxtt 
fXKos,  I  have  excluded  all  those  instances  which  involved  any 
notion  of  time  ((()6vov  en-i  (pova,  nddos  eVi  TTcWfi,  etc.),  even  though 
the  local  image  was  strong. 

4.  Again,  in  the  honors  to  the  dead  shown  over  the  corpse  at 
the  tomb  or  elsewhere,  the  step  is  easy  from  the  local  to  the 
derived  meaning,  and  to  distinguish  them  is  sometimes  difficult. 
One  may  compare  P  706  eVl  YiarpoKXcp  yjpui  jSe^ry/cet,  where  the  sense 
seems  merely  local,  with  n  661  noXtes  yap  in    avra  Kdnn«Top  and 

with  ^  77^  ^no>v)  ovs  fVi    Ilarpd/cXo)   ne'cfyvtv  .  .  .  'A;^iXX€i^f,  where   enl   IS 

often  translated  'in  honor  of     Compare  also  Xen.  Anab.  I  8,  29 

01  p.ev  (fiaai  ^aaiKea  KeXfvaal  tip'  f'Trtcr(f)d^ai  airop  Kvpco  (said  tO  be  local) 

with  Cyrop.  VII  3,  7,  where  the  same  phrase  fma cfidTT fip  npi  is  said 
to  mean  'in  his  honor.'  In  accordance  with  custom,  I  have  there- 
fore ruled  out  the  following  and  like  instances,  though  in  many 
the  local  sense  seems  sufficient:  Xen.  Hellen.  Ill  2,  5  ^(i\//-acT€f  rois 

iavTwp  Koi  7To\vp  olpop  eKTTiopres  in  alrois.  Acsch.  Ag.  1547  '"'^  "  *""•" 
Tvp^ios  alvop  in  dvbpX  6ilo)  .  .  .  noPTjcrei/  Aesch.  Eum.  329  in\  Be  t(^ 
TiOvpfPcp  Tode  fifXos.  Eur.  Alces.  148  ovkovp  in'  avrrj  npaaatrai  ra 
np6<T(popa ;      Herod.  VII  225  6  Xldipos  Xtav  f(TTr]K€  inl  Aeavidrj.      And 

the  frequent  phrase  Xf-yfii/  inl  nvi  of  epitaphios  orations,  e.  g. 
Thuc.  II  34,  6  and  8.  35,  i.  Lysias  2,  i  and  2.  Isoc.  4,  74. 
Dem,  18,  285.   60,  I. 

5.  It  seemed  best  also  sharply  to  cut  off  many  abstracts,  though 
giving  such  clear  evidence  as  they  do  to  the  usage  of  the  language 
in  the  original  concretes.     And  so,  though  dvpais  is  admitted,  I 

have  excluded  l)   npodvpois,  i^68ois,  etVoSw,  ia-^o\jj,  oplois,  Spoit,  icrxdrco, 

dpxij,  opfi^,  rippari,  reXet,  reXevr^  ;  also  (though  sometimes  admitting 

;^a)pa)  tottw,  -oh,  -ov,  <TTpaTon(8<^,  (j)povpa.,  Ktpa,  onXois  CdVip,  etC. 
2)    (though   admitting   diKaartjpiois)   nyibai,  SIkt],  Siuirj],  papTvpiais,  avp- 

dijKais,  and  other  phrases  of  occasion  such  as  im  Beinpw,  <rvvaiK\lait, 
etc.  The  following  is  a  complete  list  of  words  (and  their  refer- 
ences) of  the  character  of  those  under  i) : 


62 


apxn  Theognis  607.  Plat.  Timae. 

Sta/3ao-et  (of  a  river)  Thuc.  VII 
78,  3.  Xen.  An.  VI  3,  5. 
Hell.  VII  2,  10.     Mag.   Eq. 

4,  5  (pl-)- 
dvajjims  Xen.  An.  VII  3,  34. 
(a^oXlj  Thuc.  IV  83,  2. 
etVoSo)  Xen.  Cyr.  I  3,  11. 
ffi^oXiJ  Xen.  Hell.  IV  3,  10.    7, 

7  (Pl.). 
e^dSotf  Aesch.Sept.  33.  58.    Eur. 

Hel.  1165.  Ion  575.  Rhes. 
514.     Xen.  Hell.  V  4,  4  (e|65a) 

idxara  Plat.  Charm.  155  c.    Pro- 
tag.  344  a.     Rep.  523  e. 
fvvais  (camp)  Thuc.  VI  67,  i. 

einrpocroScoTaTois  Xen.  Hell.  VI  5> 
24. 

Kipa  (of  army,  either  rrg-ki  or 
/(?/"/)  Hd.  9, 102.  Thuc.  I  49, 
6.  II  90,  2.  IV  43,  4  6^'  «. 
93.  4-  94.  I-  V  67,  I  (2).  VI 
67,  2.  loi,  4.     Xen.  An.  I  8, 

20.  VI  5,11.  Hell.  Ill  2,15 
(2).  IV  4,  9.  V  2,  40,  41. 
Oec.  4,  19. 

AuSois  Soph.  Trach.  356. 

XooTpolai  Soph.  Elec.  445. 

/Lte'ffto  (of  army,  like  Kepas)  Xen. 

An.  VI  5,  II. 
ottXois  camp  Com.  Frg.  Adesp. 

663  (III).     Thuc.  VII  28,  2. 

VIII  69,  2.     Xen.  Cyr.  VII 

2.  8. 
op'iois  Thuc.  II  12,  3.     Xen.  An. 

V  4,  2.   Cyr.  II  4,  31.  VIII  5, 

21.  Hell.  VII  2,   I.    4,  39. 


Andoc.  I,  45.      Lycurg.  47. 

Dem.  18,  174,  230. 
opp.r)  Plat.  Timae.  27  c. 
opuco  Thuc.  Ill  76,  I. 
opois  Aesch.   Prom.  666.     Eur. 

Med.  540.    Hd.  (ovpoia-i)  3, 91. 

5,  52.     Xen.  Hell.  VII  2,  20. 
ovpa  (of  column  of  men)  Xen. 

Hell.  IV  3,  4. 

7rpo6vpoi.cr(i)  2  496.    a  IO3.      Plat. 

Com.  4,  2  (II)  (Bergk  eVi, 
legebatur  hi).  Eur.  Alces. 
lOi.     Plat.  Phileb.  64  c. 

irpvpivois  (ayopai)  Pind.  Py th.  V  93. 

aKonnis  Xen.  Cyr.  VI  3,  6. 
orei/w  Xen.  Hell.  VI  4,  3,  27. 

arparevfiaTi  Isae.  4i  26- 

(TTpuTOTTibco  Xen.  An.  VII  3,  i. 

TiKevTrj  Xen.  Mem.  I  5,  2  roG  jSi'ot;. 
Aeschin.  3,    205   rijy   dTroXoyta?. 

Plat.  Gorg.  516  a  ToC  /Si'oi;. 
re'Xci  Plat.  Euthyd.  291  b,  of  a 
discussion.      Menex    234  a. 
Leg.   730  c.    818  a.      Polit. 
268  d.     Rep.  506  d.   532  b  tV' 

ovrw  ■ytyj/erai  rw  tov  vorjTov  reXei 
axTTVfp  eKeivos  tots  tiri  rw  tov 
oparov. 

Ttpp-ari,   -<n    Aesch.    Eum.   633. 

Eur.  Heracl.  278.     Charmus 

(perh.   See  Bergk,  II,  p.  379). 

Hd.  7,  54.      Xen.  De  Rep. 

Lac.  10,  I  TOV  ^tov. 
TOTva,   -01?    Soph.    Trach.    iioo. 

Xen.  Cyr.  VIII  6,  17.     Isoc. 

5,  120. 
{<7^ep^oX^^  Xen.  An.  IV  6,  6  (2),  24. 
(fypovpa  Dem.  54,  3  (Blass  eV). 
yj/vxjj  Soph.  Ant.  317. 


63 
Instances  of  the  genitive  case  are  the  following  : 

KapT€pa>v  Thuc.  Ill  i8,  5.  aKOTTTjs  Xen.  Cyr.  VI  3,  12. 

Keparos  Hd.  9,  47.     Xen.  An.  I  aTpuTonibov  Xen.  An.  VI   5,  4. 

8,9.    Hell.  114,13.  VII  5, 25.  Plat.  Leg.  674  a. 

on\a)v  caynp  Xen.  De  Rep.  Lac.  reXfuTi";?  (jov  \6yov)   Aeschin.  3, 

12,  7.  257. 

TrXeupwi/  (of  column  of  men)  Xen.  roVoi;  Dem.  10,  23. 

An.  Ill  2,  36.  ({)povpas  Xen.  De  Rep.  Lac.  13, 

npoaareiov  Thuc.  II  34,  5.  I,  II. 

Here  too,  it  appears,  is  there  an  oscillation  between  gen.  and 
dat.,  but  it  is  not  a  vacillation.  The  context  will  show  that  the 
dat.  is  deictic,  the  gen.  adjectival — a  difference  strikingly  shown 
by  the  two  following  passages :  Dein.  3,  8  eVi  /ueV  twv  ciWcov  aSiKr]- 

p.uTa>v  (rKfyj/apivovs  aKpi^oiS  Set  fifd  ijarvxias  ical  raXrjdis  e^eraaavras,  ovTcas 
TTiTidevai  Tols  TjdiKrjKoai  rrjv  Tip.(opiav,  eVi   de  Tois   (pavepals  (cat  napa  ndvTuii> 

wixoXoyijpfvais  npodoaiais  kt\.  IsOC.  15,  20  koi  yap  alaxpov  enl  pttv  rasv 
aXXcoj/  irpuypLaTdiv  eXerjpoveaTaTovs    opoKoyelcrdai  .  •  .  ,  eTrt  oe  Totv  ayuxri  Tins 

ivddde  yiyvop-tvois  Tavavrla  ttj  86^tj  Tavrrj  (fiaivfadai  npuTTovTai.      It  Will  be 

seen  that  secondary  matters  (aXXa)  are  disposed  of  with  the  geni- 
tive, important  matters  emphasized  by  the  dative  (note  toIs  e'vOude 
yiyvofievois  in  the  last  example), 

6.  Finally,  the  phrase  eV  oiKripams  (^epyadrrjpiov,  reyovs)  has  been 
excluded,  when  signifying  places  of  prostitution.  The  passages 
are;  Hd.  2,  121  e,  126.  Dem.  59,  67  epyao-ri^piov,  by  euphemism. 
Aeschin.  i,  74.  Dein.  i,  23.  Plat.  Charm.  163  d.  In  view  of 
the  fact  that  Grecian  houses  were  built  low — perhaps  especially 
the  case  with  cheap  houses  of  prostitution,  mere  slaves'  quarters — 
Professor  Gildersleeve  has  suggested  as  somewhat  more  than 
probable  that  the  women  literally  sat  upon  them,  just  as  other 
wares  would  be  exposed  to  view.'  See  his  note  on  <Vt  riyovn, 
Justin  Martyr  Apol.  I  26,  15.  One  would  be  inclined  to  connect 
eV'  f'pyaoTTiptcop  worksJiops  thus  immediately  with  the  literal  sense 
of  €771.  But  whether  tVt  8iKaorT»jpt'ou  (see  the  orators)  should  also  be 
so  treated  is  doubtful,  in  view  of  the  rather  extended  use  of  i-nl  c. 
gen.  in  the  sense  of  coram.  One  passage,  however,  certainly 
favors  the  literalness  of  the  phrase,  viz.  Dem.  58,  40  «Vt  tw^  hiKau- 
Tr}plo>v  Ka\  Toi  ^^paros — a  passage  to  which  Lutz  fails  to  draw  atten- 
tion. 

1  See  the   scholiast,  however,  on  Plat.  Charm.  163/':  t.  tov  deafiuTT/plov, 

wf  Avcr/af,  ?/  e,  nopveiov,  wf  'Attikoi, 


64 

B. 

Examples  of  1-kI  in  the  Attic  Inscriptions. 

The  following  are  the  instances  of  eVi  c.  gen.  and  dat.  in  local 
sense  in  the  Attic  Inscriptions  down  to  300  B.  C. : 


eVi  c.  Dat. 


Vol.  I   I,  40  /3a)/i(B. 

273,    14    SoDI/tW. 

273,  22  HaXXaSiw,  also  in  1.  5. 

321,  20  roix<^,  also  in  1.   43. 
=  a/. 

322,  9    yovia    ad    angulum 
Boeckh. 

322,  83  Trpoorao-ei  ad poHicum 

B. 


Vol.  I  322,  90  enia-TuXlois   in  epi- 
styliis  B. 

324  a  I  44  Kuyotarioi/  .  ,  .  to  ini 
(sic)  rw  emarvXia.  So  324  f 
II   12.' 

432  a,  32  SiSciM  ("is  locus,  ubi 
terrarum  situs  t'uerit  igno- 
ramus," Kirchh.). 
Vol.  II  163,  19  ^w/xw  (twice). 


eVi  c.  Gen. 


Vol.    I    31,    17  A  ra)^   em   OpdKTjs. 

So  181,  3.  446,  46. 

157,     6     KOpt]     XP^'^V     ^'"''^     O'T^Xjyj. 

So  170,  II.    173,  6. 

319,  19   KXifMOKe)   ((ji'  cov  01  Xidoi 
eVeko/xi^oi/TO. 


Vol.  I  322,  44  Toixov  ad parietem 
Boeckh.     So  lines  51,  67. 
322,  86  Kopu^v  supra puellas  B. 

324^  I  18    TQV  apdpa  TOP  eVt  ttjs 

^aKTT]pias  elarrjKOTa. 
Vol.  II  167,  63  Toixov. 


Table  showing  the  Local  Use  of  In 6. 


Gen. 

=  sub 

=  U7rc'K 

Total 
Gens. 

Dative, 

Total 
Dats. 

Accus. 

Total 
Aces. 

Horn,  and  Hym. 

28 

17 

(18) 

133(1 

34)     109 

212 

70 

72 

Hesiod 

12 

2 

32 

14 

25 

2 

2 

Pindar 

3 

4 

12 

12 

26 

5 

6 

Aesch. 

7 

0 

48 

15 

22 

14 

14 

Soph. 

10 

0 

60 

10 

10 

5 

6 

Eurip. 
Aristoph. 
Herodot. 
Thucyd. 

12(13) 
i(?) 
0 
0 

5 
1 
I 

0 

(4) 
(?) 
(?) 

13s 
157 

457 
366 

41 
6 

14 
4 

45 

9 

40 

13 

29 
9 

22 
6 

30 
12 

45 
43 

Xenoph. 
Orators 

0 
0 

0 

702 
1294 

28 
8 

52 
63 

24 
See  note. 

33 
26 

Plato 

[6 

0 

.? 

5 

16 

13 

15] 

65 

In  preparing  this  table  I  have  relied  in  the  case  of  Homer, 
Pindar,  Aesch.,  Soph.,  Aristoph.,  Thucyd.,  the  Orators,  and  Plato, 
upon  the  lexicons  of  Ebeling,  Rumpel,  Dindorf,  Ellendt,  Sobo- 
lewski  (dissertation).  Van  Essen,  Lutz,  and  Ast  respectively.  The 
last-named  is  of  course  incomplete,  and  I  have  bracketed  the 
figures.  For  the  other  authors  the  count  is  my  own.  The  fol- 
lowing notes  may  be  added  as  explanatory,  or  of  interest : 

The  phrases  vn6  ctkotov,  -ov,  -&>  {(n(f)ov,  crKids,  aiiyiis,  (vBiav)  have 
been  included  in  the  list  as  local,  the  metaphor  being  a  vivid  one, 
if  indeed  they  are  to  be  reckoned  as  metaphors.    But  the  phrases 

Sa/X7yi/at  (Te^^ai/at,  etC.)  vno  ;^fpat  (^naXafirja-i,  etC.)  rivos,  OV  {jiro  rivi,  have 

been  excluded  from  the  purely  local  list,  as  also  vno  fjniXTjs.  This  last 
phrase  has  certainly  lost  all  literal  significance,  as  shown  by  the 
word  itself,  which  occurs  only  in  the  genitive  and  only  in  this 
phrase  {naa-xdXr}  being  the  literal  word).  These  are  almost  certain 
marks  of  "  adverbiale  Erstarrung,"'  rendered  doubly  certain  here 
by  the  fact  that  the  sense  of  occidte  is  necessary  in  some  and 
admissible  in  all  of  the  passages  where  it  is  found,  viz.  Aristoph. 
Lys.  985.  Xen.  Hell.  II  3,  23.  Lysias  Frg.  54.  Dem.  29,  12. 
Plat.  Gorg.  469  d,  Leg.  VII  789  c.  Sobolewski  is  inclined  to 
admit  this :  "  nescio  an  hie  quoque  (Lys.  985)  haec  significatio 
{clanaihivi  vel  occulte)  praeferenda  sit,"  but  Lutz  quotes  the 
Lysias  fragment  as  "  das  einzige  lokale  Beispiel  fiir  'vn6  c.  gen. 
bei  den  attischen  Rednern." 

In  the  usage  of  the  individual  authors  the  following  points  may 
be  noted : 

Homer  shows  but  two  cases  where  vno  c.  ace.  may  be  taken  as 
temporal,  n  202  vno  \i.r]viQ\i6v,  X  io2  viixB'  vno.  The  sub  iviperio 
sense  of  vn6  c.  dat.,  which  is  steady  and  frequent  throughout, 
begins  in  Homer  with  nine  instances,  at  the  head  of  which  may 
stand  vno  aK7]nrpa — the  source  perhaps  of  all  the  others. 

Hesiod,  according  to  Rzach's  constitution  of  the  text,  shows 
vno  c.  ace.  only  twice,  one  of  these  being  Ini  x^*'""  Theog.  304, 
the  other  ovpas  8'  vn6,  Op.  512. 

Pindar  uses  vn6  c.  dat.  seven  times  to  express  agent,  against 
vno  c.  gen.  five  times.  His  preference  here  therefore,  as  well  as 
in  the  local  use,  should  decide  for  the  dat.  in  Ol.  VI  40  \6xfiais  vtto 
Kvnvims,  altogether  aside  from  the  question  of  picturesqueness  (as 
one  item  of  which  note  the  imperf.  tense  of  (tikt().  Note  also  the 
difference  between  In'  AiTvar  01.  XIII  iii  and  vn' 6<f)pvi  tlapvaaitf 

'See  Brugmann,  Griech.  Gram.,  §175  (p.  200). 


66 

V.  io6,  the  latter  hi  a  careful  enumeration.  Among  the  five 
local  accusatives,  tVo  yav  once,  v-nh  x^^^a  twice.  Like  Hesiod,  he 
has  no  temporal  accus. 

Aeschylus. — In  the  seven  local  genitives,  three  are  x^°v°^f  o"^ 
y^f.     Again  there  appears  no  temporal  accusative. 

Sophocles. — In  the  ten  instances  of  the  local  gen.  two  are  x^^^^^^ 
three  yai'a?  (yaf,  y^?).  Note  the  difference  between  v-no  arTeyrjs  Ant. 
1248,  which  means  no  more  than  under  cover,  clam,  and  Tr"S'  in-o 
o-Te'yj?  pathetically  pointed  out  by  Pliiloctetes,  Phil.  286.  Sophocles 
too  avoids  the  temporal  accusative. 

Euripides,  as  might  be  expected,  reverts  to  the  epic  utto,  signi- 
fying vnU,  four  times — or,  if  we  follow  Weil  in  Orest.  1457,  five  times. 
(Phoen.  792  being  surely  corrupt  (see  Paley),  has  been  excluded.) 
But  he  follows  Hesiod,  Pindar,  Aesch.,  Soph,  in  using  no  tem- 
poral vTTo  c.  accusative. 

Aristophanes  Av.  1070  vtt  f/ias  nrepvyos  has  been  admitted  as 
local,  with  Sobolewski  (^S7i5   ala  mea),  but  is  doubtful.     Kock 

reads  eV.      So    too  Vesp.    206    vnobvofx^vos  .  .  .  Ino  rav   Kepafiihav   haS 

been  taken  to  mean  desub  tegulis  by  Sobolewski.  From  the 
rarity  of  that  meaning  in  post- Homeric  Greek,  this  may  be 
doubted,  unless  indeed  there  be  hidden  here  a  parody  on  Euripi- 
des.    At  last  two  temporal  accusatives  are  met,  Acharn.  139  in-' 

avTOV  Tov  xP'''Vov,  1076  VTTO  roiis  Xoas. 

Herodotus  4,  8  is  read  by  Stein  and  Kriiger  irro  tov  apuaros  and 
translated  as  vntK.  But  Abicht,  Baehr  and  others  read  otto,  and 
Van  Herwerden  casts  out  altogether.  The  nearest  approach  to  a 
local  gen.  is  vuo  fiaarlyap  J,  22  and  56.  But  this  means  to  the  tune 
of  the  /<3:^/^  just  as  in  hir  avKov.  Of  the  twenty-two  local  accusa- 
tives, ten  are  v;ro  yr]v\  of  the   14  temporal  accusatives,  nine  are 

WTTO  vviaa  (yiTo  ri^v  .  .  .  vvKTa,  etc.) 

Thucydides  VII  75,  5  should  not  be  read  with  Bekker  (and 
Van  Essen)  vtt6  tois  onXois,  but  eVt  to7s  ottXois  with  Pluygers.  (See 
Classen.)  In  the  forty-three  instances  of  vn-o  c.  accus.,  thirty-four 
are  temporal — a  remarkably  high  number  as  compared  with 

Xenophon,  who  in  thirty-three  accusatives  has  the  temporal 
VTTO  c.  ace.  but  twice,  ino  c.  gen.  in  the  sense  of  vntK  is  said  by 
Kriiger  to  be  seen  in  An.  VI  2,  22  and  25. 

The  Orators. — According  to  Lutz,  p.  179,  "  Der  lokale  Ge- 
brauch  (of  vn6  c.  ace.)  umfasst  mehr  als  die  Halfte  aller  Beispiele, 
Antiphon  und  Andocides  beschranken  sich  einzig  und  allein  auf 
denselben." 


67 

Plato's  usage  is  not  full)'  reported  b}'  Ast.,  but  is  perhaps  given 
complete  in  the  rarer  matters,  as  in  the  local  gen.  and  dat.  Of 
the  six  local  instances  of  iin-o  c.  gen.,  five  are  Ino  yi7f. 


The  following  dissertations  have  been  consulted  with  more  or 
less  advantage  in  the  preparation  of  this  essay  : 

Sobolewski :  De  Praepositionum  Usu  Aristophaneo,  1890. 
Lalin:  De  Praepositionum  Usu  apud  Aeschylum,  1885. 
Kuemmell :  De  Praepositionis  (ttI  Usu  Thucydideo,  1875. 
Lutz:  Die  Praepositionen  bei  den  attischen  Rednern,  1887. 
Krebs:  Die  Praepositionen  bei  Polybius,  1882. 

Also  La  Roche's  articles  on  the  Homeric  fVi  and  vtto  in  the  Zeit- 
schrift  fiir  die  Oesierr.  Gymnas.,  vols.  XII  (1861),  p.  352,  and 
XXI  (1870),  p.  81,  have  been  used.  But  my  indebtedness  to 
Professor  Gildersleeve  has  been  much  greater  than  to  any  or  all 
of  these  together. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


:<^ 


REC'D 


FEB  2  11986 


imCCIRC    RFC-' 


NOV  17 '65-12 


LOAN  DEPT. 


REtr© — 


23'65^^^^W1 


LOAN  DEPT. 


LD  21A-60m-3,'65 
(F2336sl0)476B 


General  Library 

Uniyersity  of  California 

Berkeley 


"""*'"«'•' M.  BE wur 

I 


